Palin, Supreme Court, Periodicals, Mormonism

[_EAllusion]

That was actually a pretty good interview. Instead of adding another 100 billion on stuff like rubber arrows for children

I don't think this amendment had any business whatsoever in the bill, but how people have had this relayed to them is somewhat misleading. Arrow shafts have a large excise tax on them. Apparently, the point of this tax way back when it was passed was to fund DNR type stuff at the state level - habitat preservation and restoration, wildlife management, etc. by taking money from the hunters via their arrow purchases. If it was up to me, I'd just kill the tax. While I think such things should be funded, I think it should occur at the state level and with more efficient means such as land use fees. It also is quite unfair that arrows get taxed because they are used by hunters, but not binoculars used by bird watchers. What this amendment did was exempt arrows made of wood that are sufficiently small that they definitely won't be used for hunting - i.e. children's target arrows. If you think about the rationale for the tax, this makes sense. Doubtless there's some arrow manufacturer lobbying going on, but it sounds less crazy when you follow through the reasoning.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Palin was neck deep in the debate with Big Oil in Alaska and you're telling me she was completely unaware of the Suprme Court ruling regarding Exxon?

If she was aware of it then why didn't she mention that case specifically, especially considering the level of impact it had on her state? I honestly don't see how she couldn't have been aware of it, so since she didn't mention it either means she really is that dumb or she really is that forgetful, neither of which is a quality I want to see in the White House anymore.

And is it plausible that a journalism major never read newspapers or magazines growing up?

If that's the case then why is she so pig ignorant when asked questions about current events or foriegn policy? So once again, either she really is that dumb or really is that forgetful.

This is what I am saying. The Palin bashers truly have to suspend any level of critical thought to sustain these ridiculous charges against her.

Yes, because anything that doesn't jive with your narrow view of reality is rediculous... See the above.

Palin explained her confusion with Couric's stupid question and the explanation makes perfect sense given the context.

Couric asked Palin "What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with?". How in the hell you can see that as anything other then a direct and unambiguous question is beyond me. Despite the the Supreme Court ruling lowering Exxon's payouts to victims of the Valdez spill having a sizable impact on her own state and having happened so reciently, Palin either forgot or didn't know. I honestly don't care what her excuse is after the fact. She had a brain fart and is now in "cover my ass" mode.

When she plays the game and does well, you have to say its because she was programmed or whatever. A true sign of a closed mind operating on double-standards.

The Couric interview and Palin's ass covering since pretty much demonstrates point blank that Palin is about worthless without preparation from her campaign handlers.

Well, who the hell forgot to coach Joe Biden, who's been in Congress 36 years and still doesn't know what the first article of the constitution states?

At least he knew enough about the article he was talking about to know that the only time the VP may cast his vote in the Senate is if, and only if, there is a tie vote.

Name one single thing Palin could have said that is this embarassing to American politics.

1. Can't even remember a supreme court case that effected the state she was governor of.

2. openly antagonistic towards the Russians at a time when the last thing this country needs is another enemy.

3. Thinks having a boarder with another county mean she has "foriegn policy experience", which is absurd as saying since I have a fence with my neighbor then I am an expert on their personal lives.

Want me to go on?

[_Analytics]

People who have a systematic approach to keeping abreast of the world take pride in the specific stack of periodicals they read. You can tell a lot about somebody by what’s on that list. If one person says, “I read the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, and Business Week”, that tells you something different than somebody who reads, say, “Investors Business Daily, Fortune, and Money”, or “USA Today, Time, and Newsweek”, or “The New York Post, the Washington Times, and the Limbaugh Letter.”

I thought it was an excellent question to get to know her. It says something about her that she interpreted the question as in reference to what media is available in Alaska and not merely a question about what she systematically reads to stay abreast of things.

[_Angus McAwesome]

So what does it say when you read most of those and couple of few more that you didn't list?

[_Analytics]

So what does it say when you read most of those and couple of few more that you didn't list?

That you are a news junkie?

[_aussieguy55]

Reported in the Washington Post
"Now it turns out, one of his earliest supporters is a man named Bill Ayers," Palin said.


"Boooo!" said the crowd.

"And, according to the New York Times, he was a domestic terrorist and part of a group that, quote, 'launched a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and our U.S. Capitol,'" she continued.

"Boooo!" the crowd repeated.

"Kill him!" proposed one man in the audience.

Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

[_Angus McAwesome]

Hey, sounds like Dart's kind of people... I mean, what the hell, if the GOP can play guilt by association fallacies, why can't the rest of us do the same thing?

But I hope I'm not the only one that's noticed that Palin has pretty much given up on even trying to seem credible on any actual issues.

[_dartagnan]

Angus is the same idiot who said John McCain has been faking his POW injury since Vietnam, just so he could use it as an excuse to be computer illiterate 30 years later. Some people simply don't care about facts or evidence, only their emotionally invested opinion.

Of course, anyone who thinks Palin isn't aware of the Supreme Court ruling that she argued against in the political arena in Alaska, as well as believing she as a Journalism major hasn't read any magazines, really needs to perofrm all sorts of mental cartwheels to rationalize this BS. Palin said she was annoyed with Couric, and I can see why.

Hey, sounds like Dart's kind of people... I mean, what the hell, if the GOP can play guilt by association fallacies, why can't the rest of us do the same thing?

As I suspected, too many democrat voters fall into the uneducated category, and Angus is a prime example. What the Obama defenders never understand is that the Ayers issue strikes at the heart of Obama's judgment. Obama launched his political campaign in Ayers' living room. He worked with him for years, long after he had bombed the Pentagon.

Obama has poor judgment all around. he is constantly surrounded by the most extreme of leftist fanatics, and only when election times comes around does he try to distance himself from them. Angus says this is guilt by association. Nobody is saying Obama is a terrorist just because his friends are. We are saying he is an idiot for being their friend to begin with. Anti-Americans who have commited terrorist acts on our soil. Only in academia could a leftist nut loike this find a job.

The only true guilt by association fallacy is being played by the Obama camp who keeps trying to equate McCain and Bush, despite their fierce differences.

[_Angus McAwesome]

Angus is the same idiot who said John McCain has been faking his POW injury since Vietnam, just so he could use it as an excuse to be computer illiterate 30 years later. Some people simply don't care about facts or evidence, only their emotionally invested opinion.

You lying little shitbag... I said I want him to name the specific ailment because he seems to use his HANDS quite well for a man his age. Not that I expect you to ever be honest in debate, but if you're going to quote me then quote my actual words, boy.

Of course, anyone who thinks Palin isn't aware of the Supreme Court ruling that she argued against in the political arena in Alaska, as well as believing she as a Journalism major hasn't read any magazines, really needs to perofrm all sorts of mental cartwheels to rationalize this BS. Palin said she was annoyed with Couric, and I can see why.

Then why didn't Palin mention that specific case when asked by Couric? Why didn't Palin name some magazines she reads when asked? It's not like Couric was going out of her was to confuse Palin, but if you think "what other Supreme Court ruling do you disagree with" or "what magazines do you read" are confusing questions, then I submit that the biggest qualification Palin has for being vice president is an IQ slightly high then her bust size.

As I suspected, too many democrat voters fall into the uneducated category, and Angus is a prime example.

Want to compare degrees, asshole?

the only true guilt by association fallacy is being played by the Obama camp who keeps trying to equate McCain and Bush, despite their fierce differences.

No, it's associating McCain with "Just Another far right neoconservative Republican".

[_EAllusion]

Yes, Palin was annoyed with Couric because Couric asked her relevant questions to gain information about her influences and views on important issues. So instead of simply answering the questions with a straightforward line or two that she totally could've given, instead of explaining why she disliked the question and not answering it, she gave lengthy replies and in the process came across as ignorant, a BSer, and partially coherent thus making her seem like a fool to large swaths of the nation. That sure showed Couric. And this is supposed to make me feel better about what happened?

You know what I think? She give rambling, BS answers because she doesn't regularly read any particular periodical, which wouldn't be shocking, or she wasn't sure if it would be politically safe to mention the ones she does - be it The New York Times or waking up every day to log on to worldnetdaily. She couldn't name a Supreme Court case outside of Roe vs. Wade to disagree with because she couldn't think of any on the spot. Either that or, less likely, the only other ones that came to mind were cases like Lawrence vs. Texas and she wasn't sure if saying that would be acceptable to her campaign. This has the benefit of not making oneself a fool by actually believing the explanation given in this interview.

On the plus side, everyone else I've seen react to her excuse, including Republicans, has chuckled. If I were to ask the rhetorical "Who actually believes this?" Kevin G. has provided me with my answer.