Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_dartagnan]

But your assessment would be proved foolish since this woman, contrary to what you've been saying about her, hung in there with Washington's more experienced veteran and earned her spot.

How is this possible?

At least we know Palin proved she should be on the same stage as Biden. She made him look like an idiot last night.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Kevin,

I appreciate your passion for political jousting; still, I'm perplexed by your myopic assessment:

She made him look like an idiot last night.

Really?...

Did we watch the same debate?...

Governor Palin's contrived folksy persiflage scarcely hid her utter lack of substance. What have "We the People" come to when such an imbecilic performance by a VP candidate could be judged a success?

Pray tell, Kevin, or any other Palin defender, what did the governor mean by the following?

PALIN: No, no. Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are... That's near and dear to my heart also.
...
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the [C]onstitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.

Perhaps you can elucidate this "flexibility" of the vice presidential role as outlined in the Constitution.

Best wishes,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_dartagnan]

Well Brent, I suppose first you'd have to explain which Constitution you're referring to.

The Constitution of the United States of America or the Constitution of Joe Biden?

Apparently, despite having attended reputable institutions of higher learning, and spending three decades in Congress, it became painfully evident last night that Senator Biden knows less about the US Constitution than most 9th graders. This is something we'd all expect from George Bush. The Constitution in which Joe Biden is familiar with, has an Article 1 that refers to the executive branch. He was pretty adamant and commanding about that point. I know he studied political science at the University of Delaware, but maybe he should try getting his money back. Or maybe he plagiarized his final exam too.

As far as flexibility goes, Palin could simply be referring to the fact that the VP in the US Constitution presides over the Senate which is part of the US Legislature. VPs have been assigned various roles in government by the President, so I can see how that would be a flexible position. But I don't know exactly what she meant by flexibility anymore than you do. I have noticed several leftist bloggers alarming everyone that she is plotting to sneak her way into the Legislature in a way to change laws. I hope that isn't your fear.

And yes, Biden came off looking like the idiot. Why?

Well, Palin pointed out that he was the one who said he'd serve with McCain on his ticket, and he also said his running mate, Barack Obama, wasn't prepared to lead the country. And yet here he is, doing an "about face" because he was chosen as the VP and his career took a fortunate turn. This is just opportunism dictating one's positions. What's respectable about that?

And I don't think it is Palin's "folksy persiflage" that is scoring her points with the general public, although it has become clear the left truly hates the fact that she connects with ordinary people. I don't think Biden demonstrated any more "substance" than Palin last night. He has a way of talking authoritatively, but he usually did it the most when he was blathering falsehoods, such as McCain refusing to have a sit down with the King of Spain. That is nothing short of bogus, but he reiterated it twice with such command, I could see how it would resonate well with Americans. But it wasn't true.

They both answered questions in their own way that sometimes avoided the questions. But some of the questions were redundant and even boring. The moderator did a horrible job on challenging both of them.

[_EAllusion]

For all his independent study, Kevin has a sterling record of endorsing Republican positions and talking points, now matter how ridiculous, unmatched by few people I've seen. As you would guess, this practice doesn't wear well with age. Go back to ZLMB and do a search on his name. Read his posts from 2003/04 on politics and the Iraq War.

A personal favorite of mine is a thread in which he argues that true Americans are those who voted for George W. Bush. He goes on to argue that Democrats are anti-American. An argument he actually makes is that they hate America because they seek to reform the country just like those foreigners do. It'd be worth finding that one.

----------

In my brief search, I just read a post in which he says via passive voice that Jimmy Carter never met a dictator or terrorist he didn't admire while referring to earlier assertions that liberals as a group are amoral or have "low morals". Stay Classy, Kevin.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/topic/11 ... ality.html

But here's my truly awesome find.

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/reply/64 ... #reply-640

In this thread I talked about a Fox news Ticker line about "The War on Christmas." Well, it turns out I posted about it on ZLMB where I have a picture of it.

It's done with the classic Fox technique of making a ridiculous, biased assertions or inneundo by putting question marks at the end of them. The Daily show hilariously mocks this here:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index ... stion-mark

[_beastie]

Now, that's funny, EA. I keep checking this thread to see if Trevor has gone stark, raving mad yet from trying to reason with Kevin, and I'm glad I found your post.

I particularly love this response to Kevin's "amoral liberals" post:

Very well said. :-)

Liberal morality: justify the slaughter of innocents, mourn the death of a terrorist.

Conservative morality: enforce stability and public welfare, rejoice at the death of a terrorist.

I'm a conservative, and I know it, and I'm proud of it.

ON

You can't make this stuff up. Any chance you remember the author of this post?

[_dartagnan]

EA in all his frustration, decided a week or so ago he could no longer keep up defending his position on the election without engaging in some true overt hypocrisy. Trevor realized this yesterday when he decided to back out. Now EA wants to pretend this tripe above is some how engaging the evidence I have been presenting. This amounts to nothing more than school yard antics of a moron who responds to refutation with... "Well, look what you said four years ago!" just to increase his populist vote.

For all his independent study, Kevin has a sterling record of endorsing Republican positions and talking points, now matter how ridiculous, unmatched by few people I've seen.

This is bull. I have posted on this forum about seeking to vote democrat. My move to Brazil changed my perspective on politics and gave me cause for pause, and I said voting for Bush was a mistake I regret. But it certainly had nothing to do with my disagreement with fiscal conservatism. It had everything to do with his fumblings in Iraq.

A personal favorite of mine is a thread in which he argues that true Americans are those who voted for George W. Bush. He goes on to argue that Democrats are anti-American. An argument he actually makes is that they hate America because they seek to reform the country just like those foreigners do. It'd be worth finding that one.

It is dishonest to use anything from ZLMB because the website is pretty much defunct, all the monikers have been removed and context is impossible to determine. The post you linked to was in response to a previous discussion whereby democrats had claimed republicans were the immoral ones. I simply posted a link showing how democrats had traditionally fawned over tyrants of the world. From Jimmy Carter to Michael Moore, they never met a dictator that wasn't after their hearts.

I think it should be obvious by now that the die-hard Obamaites can no longer maintain this attack on Palin without looking absolutely foolish. Why? Because it became clear Biden is now the joke of the election. Now you're venting your frustrations in any way you can, aside from dealing with the evidence.

[_EAllusion]

EA in all his frustration, decided a week or so ago he could no longer keep up defending his position on the election without engaging in some true overt hypocrisy.

I wouldn't interpret my picking and choosing when to talk to the brick wall that is you as me backing out of any conversation, so much as being prudent with one's spots and time. Much like Droopy, on other message boards I post on, people would just assume you were trolling - posting ridiculous or inflammatory things to draw response. The effect is the same. I reply from time to time under the theory that some Kevin G's are real, so it doesn't hurt to act as though you are. In truth, you're political apologia seems to follow the pattern of your Mormon apologia, and I'm not sure how much of this isn't internal advocacy for the devil. But whatevs as they say.

This is bull. I have posted on this forum about seeking to vote democrat.

Oh, I wouldn't be so bold as to deny any exceptions, but you are notorious for endorsing one ridiculous talking point and position after another. You're the Newsmax of posters. And I can go to sites like that and anticipate what you are going to say with strong reliability no matter the quality of content. Since you've explicitly said Democrats are anti-American, I can only wonder why you are seeking to vote for an anti-American.

It is dishonest to use anything from ZLMB because the website is pretty much defunct, all the monikers have been removed and context is impossible to determine.

Heh. Unless it all was an elaborate parody, I think there's plenty of damning material there.

Here's the thread in question. It's opened by you with the title, "Proof Democrats are anti-American whiners."

http://pacumenispages.yuku.com/reply/26 ... ply-262809

The quote in question from you is, "It only goes to prove that in the liberal mind, their own core leftist beliefs are more important to them than their country. They want to make America conform to their reforming beliefs, just as foreigners like to do also. The true blue Americans are those who voted for Bush. Those who cherish what America has always stood for. This was a huge statement [the reelection of George W. Bush] by the american people, and not everyone who is an American is really an American."

I'll explain the context if need be.

[_dartagnan]

Oh, I wouldn't be so bold as to deny any exceptions, but you are notorious for endorsing one ridiculous talking point and position after another. You're the Newsmax of posters.

I rarely go over to Newsmax, and in fact never heard of it until you brought it up last time. I certainly don't recall using that website for any citations in my posts. But even if what you say is true, what's the problem? Do you really think people like yourself and beastie didn't launch into all sorts of numbskull attacks on Palin the day she was selected, as they were dictated to you by extreme liberal freaks at Slate and Ariana Huffington's line of columnists? Too many of these were immediately shot down and discredited, which is why beastie immediately left the discussion. She accused Palin of stupid things that simply were not true.

And I can go to sites like that and anticipate what you are going to say with strong reliability no matter the quality of content. Since you've explicitly said Democrats are anti-American, I can only wonder why you are seeking to vote for an anti-American

You're referring to a short post with a link that reported a number of democrats threatened to abandon their citizenship if they lost the election. What more evidence does one need for anti-Americanism? How does any of this change the fact that you and your ilk here are unable to maintain a coherent defense of your political positions today?

As it is, you're just desperately trying to change the subject. Typical. I wondered where you fled to after you referred to Biden's stupidity as a simple mistake. Now that he has racked up more of them, and they can hardly be deemed excusable, I see you decided to avoid the matter altogether and spend your time mining the archives at ZLMB for the purposes of attacking me on positions I either no longer hold or that have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

[_dartagnan]

And by the way, how in the flippity flam can you call me a "brick wall"? I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to dissuade me from my position. Beastie said Trev was "trying to reason" with me, but I doubt Trev would even go that far. In fact, I'm pretty sure I came to these political discussions to challenge the numerous criticisms and attacks on Palin.

Brick wall? I have an established record of changing my mind when a reasonable case has been made. You don't.

[_EAllusion]

I rarely go over to Newsmax, and in fact never heard of it until you brought it up last time.

That's why I said sites like it. I picked it as symbolic.

Do you really think people like yourself and beastie didn't launch into all sorts of numbskull attacks on Palin the day she was selected, as they were dictated to you by extreme liberal freaks at Slate and Ariana Huffington's line of columnists?

Hmmm. Let's see. On the day Palin was selected, I tentatively praised McCain for the selection on this board. Go to Off Topic. I believe the thread is titled, "Good job McCain." I repeatedly said that I thought it was about as ideal as it was going to get based on early information.

You can read some of my comments in this thread here:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/show ... p?t=645423

When more information came out, I decided that the initial reaction was based on superficial comments that are a reflection of general Alaskan politics and a boatload of misleading material. Additionally, information that we simply had none of, such as her leadership style and knowledge, came out and was extremely negative as far as I'm concerned. You can see the same evolution in reaction with libertarian sites like Reason Mag. My reaction was formed via reading primary sources.

So, to sum it up, you are totally wrong. Good job.

Too many of these were immediately shot down and discredited

Heh. Yeah Kevin.

You're referring to a short post with a link that reported a number of democrats threatened to abandon their citizenship if they lost the election. What more evidence does one need for anti-Americanism?

Two points. You've said this several times. That I merely quoted one example doesn't mean this is the only time you said it. Second, you said it of all Democrats and used the fact that a few were moving to Canada as evidence of this.

How does any of this change the fact that you and your ilk here are unable to maintain a coherent defense of your political positions today?

You seem to believe that failing to reply to you constitutes being unable to maintain a defense of my political views. No. My most recent post was a reply to your hilarious appeals to independent study, when you are one of the most biased posters to grace the message board world of LDS apologetics. If the Republicans started calling Palin a genius to counter questions about her intelligence, you'd be vociferously arguing in favor of it. It's inevitable. This was followed by a wink to Trevor about the fact that you are something of a brick wall as amply demonstrated by your ZLMB posting history.

As it is, you're just desperately trying to change the subject. Typical. I wondered where you fled to after you referred to Biden's stupidity as a simple mistake. Now that he has racked up more of them, and they can hardly be deemed excusable,

So, you agree then that McCain is aspiring to be a dictator, right? He said so the other day. It was shortly after he said Venezuala is in the Middle East. He's been making mistakes like this on a near weekly basis for those who are willing to follow it. It happens when one is constantly giving speeches. Much like those who assert this means McCain is developing dementia, I don't think you have an appreciation of the nature of "gaffes" and what reflect on mispeaking or understandable lapses in thought and what reflect on genuine lack of knowledge or ability. To quote someone from the other board I linked,

When noting gaffes, there must be a careful distinction made between things which are extremely likely to be simple slips of the tongue, or momentary lapses of thought, and things which reveal huge gaps in a candidate's knowledge and ability.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/show ... stcount=12