[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They are trying extra hard - to the point of making themselves look stupid.

The difference is that Obama can easily answer the question because he isn't a complete moron, unless you are stupendousman, and for the same reason that for a while he didn't have a birth certificate: you seem to get your jollies at being the ultimate devil's advocate against all things liberal.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The difference is that Obama can easily answer the question because he's a good actor.

Fixed that for you.

-t

[andi*pandi]

Like Reagan?

[besson3c]

Whatever his tactics, his problem is generally not sounding like a complete dumbass ala Palin.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Inventing an "error" where none really exists

Timelines are important, unless you live on stupendous world.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

And when exactly was she requesting to teach history anyways?

I don't know, did she?
Maybe reread what I posted.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, not the question - but rather what the media decided to do with it.

To me, her claim of gotcha when it suits her shows that she isn't taking the right wing "personal responsibility" ideal.
You ignoring this shows you're trying to hard defending her.

noun
an instance of publicly tricking someone or exposing them to ridicule, esp. by means of an elaborate deception.

Seriously, really?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever his tactics, his problem is generally not sounding like a complete dumbass ala Palin.

You missed your calling in the world of comedy!

To most who actually listen to Palin, other than the media "gotchas", she does NOT sound like a dumbass. If you only focus on factual errors which really aren't errors, or her being hesitant to answer certain questions knowing she's being set up for a media soundbite, which the media then plays over and over and over again, you could come to that conclusion.

If you focus on the same sorts of verbal f-ups with Obama, clear factual errors, or an inability often times to speak clearly without a TelePrompTer, and then play those instances over and over on TV, you'd see Obama would have the same image to you.

Palin has to deal with the media's anti-right agenda, which seeks to diminish those who are conservative - ESPECIALLY women and minorities, as being either dumb or "extreme". It's part of a template they play OVER AND OVER. Obama does not have to deal with that. We've got a guy pretty far left who has trouble with some pretty basic concepts, can't seem to hardly speak without any notes, who pretends over and over to be a middle of the road guy who is really smart, and the media goes with it.

The media and the people who you choose to fellowship with on a daily basis might think that everyone else is stupid, but you're only fooling yourself.

Again, remember my argument isn't that Palin has the best resume or is the smartest in pack - just that compared to Obama, she really doesn't have to try that hard to compete. He's a guy who accomplished little, who seems to have trouble thinking and communicating without prompting, who has policies which have failed and he doesn't seem to have a credible "plan b." Palin isn't likely to have done worse and those who criticize her and back Obama clearly aren't doing so based on an intelligent appraisal of the facts.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by screener 

Timelines are important, unless you live on stupendous world.

No one said they weren't. You and others are making a "tempest from a teapot" so to speak. She tried to spin a historical event into a second amendment message, which she did with pretty much all the facts straight - facts it's clear that many didn't even know.

To me, her claim of gotcha when it suits her shows that she isn't taking the right wing "personal responsibility" ideal.

How can she take responsibility for the agenda the media has, which is to make republican women look dumb or extreme, unless of course they agree with their political philosophy, for the most part?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't mean that at all.

Though..you'd think that if it was important to ask people like GWB and Palin what books or magazines they read, that it would be equally important to ask people like Obama the same question?

AGAIN, how did Obama answer this question?

An inability to answer THIS question is essentially a concession of my point.

really?

why doesn't fox news ask the same question? obama has been on fox a few times right?

again what are the politically correct/incorrect magazines?

[Wiskedjak]

Something tells me that stupendousman doesn't consider Fox News to be part of the "Mainstream Media", even though it's the most popular US news network.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

really?

why doesn't fox news ask the same question? obama has been on fox a few times right?

again what are the politically correct/incorrect magazines?

I'm guessing because they aren't looking for a sound bite to try and excoriate him with, via unimportant questions designed to try to make him look bad because he does not engage in the accepted behavior of the elite.

[screener]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

No one said they weren't. You and others are making a "tempest from a teapot" so to speak. She tried to spin a historical event into a second amendment message, which she did with pretty much all the facts straight - facts it's clear that many didn't even know.

She took a simple, unbiased question and turned it into a "gotcha" trap.
Facts that some don't remember learning in school because her facts were all jumbled up.
I'd check just to make sure, wouldn't you?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

How can she take responsibility for the agenda the media has, which is to make republican women look dumb or extreme, unless of course they agree with their political philosophy, for the most part?

What are you going to take with you from your visit to Boston.
Gotcha.

[andi*pandi]

Possible coherent answer:

"We enjoyed learning about the history of our great country and seeing the home of a great patriot, Paul Revere. We also had some fantastic cannoli."

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I'm guessing because they aren't looking for a sound bite to try and excoriate him with, via unimportant questions designed to try to make him look bad because he does not engage in the accepted behavior of the elite.

so if nobody asks obama the magazine question then nobody can ask sarah?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

To most who actually listen to Palin, other than the media "gotchas", she does NOT sound like a dumbass.

Perhaps this is the result of birds of a feather flocking together?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Again, remember my argument isn't that Palin has the best resume or is the smartest in pack - just that compared to Obama, she really doesn't have to try that hard to compete. He's a guy who accomplished little, who seems to have trouble thinking and communicating without prompting, who has policies which have failed and he doesn't seem to have a credible "plan b." Palin isn't likely to have done worse and those who criticize her and back Obama clearly aren't doing so based on an intelligent appraisal of the facts.

Barack Obama

- BA in Political Science from Columbia University (Ivy League)
- Community Organizer in Chicago
- JD from Harvard Law School (Ivy League). Magna Cum Laude
- President of the Harvard Law Review
- Civil Rights Attorney
- Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years
- Three term Illinois State Senator
- NY Times Bestselling Author for Dreams of My Father and The Audacity of Hope. Grammy Award Winner for the audiobook versions.
- United States Senator from Illinois
- President of the United States

Sarah Palin

- BA in Communications from University of Idaho (after bouncing around 4 other schools)
- Winner of the Miss Wasilla Beauty Pageant. Third place in Miss Alaska Beauty Pageant.
- Two term City Council Member in Wasilla, AK. Population approx. 7000.
- Two term Mayor of Wasilla, AK.
- Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
- Mayor of Alaska. Quit halfway through her first term.
- 2008 GOP Vice Presidential Candidate. Defeated.
- NY Times Bestselling Author for Going Rogue and America by Heart
- Reality TV Star for Sarah Palin's Alaska
- Fox News Commentator

By any measure Barack Obama's resume trounces that of Sarah Palin's. To suggest that someone with such a resume has "accomplished very little" simply strains credulity. It's an asinine comment that simply flies in the face of objective fact. Oh but wait ... I almost forgot. Little things like facts don't particular matter to you if they run counter to your far right ideology .... as evidenced by all that "birther" nonsense you went so hard in the paint about.

As for your "who seems to have trouble thinking and communicating without prompting" comment ... that's another line of attack you really ought to let go because it just makes you look ridiculous. The use of teleprompters in major public speeches is commonplace. Especially for Presidents ... Democrat and GOP alike. To harp on this practice when President Obama does it is really silly. To mock this practice when President Obama does it while reading notes scribbled on your hand is downright retarded. But I imagine you feel that the "lame stream media" was just picking on your poor little hero Sarah Palin when they reported that story. Noooo .... the blatant hypocrisy had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Furthermore, just look at the President's performance at unscripted press conferences. Like the one here recently regarding the debt ceiling negotiations. Again, to suggest that he is someone who has problems communicating without a teleprompter simply flies in the face of what we can all see with our own two eyes. And to compound that foolishness by blaming the media for Sarah Palin's downright incoherent response to the mother of all softball questions from Katie Couric of all people in a similar unscripted situation is the epitome of dumbassness.*

OAW

PS: That's right. It's so over the top that I needed to coin a new term capture its essence.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Possible coherent answer:

"We enjoyed learning about the history of our great country and seeing the home of a great patriot, Paul Revere. We also had some fantastic cannoli."

Indeed. She turned it into a Gotcha because she tried to use her answer to score political points rather offer a straightforward response.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

By any measure Barack Obama's resume trounces that of Sarah Palin's.

Your "resume" spin reads like a feature checklist compiled by Google to compare Android to iOS. It highlights the stuff that makes one SOUND impressive, without explaining how those features got there, and what you can and have actually accomplished with the two.

Obama did not start with an "ivy league" school. All indications are that prior to getting into Columbia he wasn't all that hot of a student, so I doubt he got there on his own merits. He won't release a thing in regards to college transcripts or papers who supposedly wrote which got him his grades. We know he had some wealthy benefactors pushing him along the way during the course of his higher education, and it's really unlikely that advantage, plus other affirmative actions didn't play a role in the "quality" of his education. So, comparing his education to Palin's, while hiding just about everything we could use to judge his actual performance in school doesn't tell us a lot about it. It's essentially resume fluff - the kind of thing the wealthy (or those with financial and political connections) use to get ahead without really being all that deserving. It's the kind of thing George Bush used to prove he was "smart" too. He too had a grad degree from an Ivy League school.

Civil rights lawyer? What important cases did he take on? What landmark precedents did cases he preside over achieve? OH...his job essentially entailed being a "proverty pimp" shaking down businesses to give stuff to minorities they didn't earn or could pay for themselves? Well, the resume doesn't quite put that into perspective now, does it?

Other than that, he held jobs where there isn't all that much as far as accomplishments to show he was able to exceed beyond the norm, and held no "executive" positions where he was the guy at the top making decisions. He went to school, got a job at another school where you keep your job often times based on politics and who you know, rather than what you achieve and when he did get into office, took a political job to shake down businesses, and there's virtually nothing of note to show he was able to use his position in office to forward important legislation that truly mattered either.

Palin on the other hand had a higher education, never likely received any kind of affirmative action, had major accomplishments in EXECUTIVE positions. You point out that Palin quit as Governor after it became clear that she wasn't going to get much governing done due to the increased national focus she was getting and the attempts to hurt her in her job by any means necessary, but ignored the fact that Obama got elected as a Senator and almost immediately shifted his attention away from his job there, and had an almost singular focus on getting elected to another office.

To suggest that someone with such a resume has "accomplished very little" simply strains credulity.

He has very little real world experience or accomplishments that would show exception leadership or intelligence. Everything he got he very well could have received due to connections, money and other affirmative action help. Getting special help and treatment in school, and having political friends in high places will GET YOU places, it won't however accomplish goals for you after you get yourself put into place.

..and writing books that are almost always "ghostwritten", by either, isn't really all that much of accomplishment. Especially when Obama had barely took political office before their was interest in him writing a biography. The man was handed achievement, and to his credit he took advantage and credit it for it. That however isn't really impressive when you look for "depth" on a resume.

He doesn't use them just for "major public speeches." He uses them for almost all of them, even minor ones talking to kindergarteners. When he doesn't, he does stuff like claim dead people are alive, claim that we have 57 states, stutter and stammer trying to get a thought out, and claim that we need more "Internets" in the classroom. I remember how roundly Bush was criticized for making a similar misstatement back when he was running for office, and it was played big in the media. Obama simply isn't all that good at talking unless his statements are prepared for him, and he can read them off a properly working prompter.

I'm not saying that he's NEVER capable of speaking property or not mangling facts. It's just that if he's not using the prompter, the odds are he's going to stick his foot in his mouth - and it won't be highlighted by any major news source - unlike what they would do with something similar in regards to Palin, who they fear.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

so if nobody asks obama the magazine question then nobody can ask sarah?

Not my point.

My point is the this is the sort of question they ask of conservatives whose intelligence they want to put into doubt, by showing that they may not read all things accepted by the intellectual elite as making you smart.

They don't ask it of a guy whose educational credentials are questionable, who shows an inability to get some basic facts like how many states there are right, and doesn't seem very confident in expressing himself in public without prepared statements. It's clear that it's because they have no desire to make him look less smart that he APPEARS to be, because they are subtle part of his campaign and are co-conspirators in fooling the public that this guy is some kind of middle of the road political genius.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Indeed. She turned it into a Gotcha because she tried to use her answer to score political points rather offer a straightforward response.

Which is what I think most politicians are ALWAYS prone to do, and NOT what she was originally being accused of before all the smart media elites had it explained to them that Revere actually did also warn the British in addition to those they were seeking to attack.

If they are going to criticize Palin for trying to score political points by spinning the facts in a way that helps her, then they really need to do that with everyone. Politicians do that on an almost hourly basis. Every time a Democrat tries to spin a vote to curb spending as a Republican wanting to make Grandma and Grandpa have to resort to eating dogwood, or go without medication, should be played over and over to shown the same sort of thing.

Most people were not born yesterday. Smart folks understand why Palin is always singled out, and it has little to do with her intelligence or lack thereof. It's about fear. It's the same thing they tried to do to Reagan, and he always got the last laugh, and Palin is likely to as well. That's because she is right on the issues, and people will always support that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which is what I think most politicians are ALWAYS prone to do ...

True, but that's because politicians are always campaigning. I thought you said she wasn't going to run for President? If she's neither holding, nor running for, a political office, she's not a politician, in my opinion.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

... I doubt he got there on his own merits ... it's really unlikely that advantage, plus other affirmative actions didn't play a role in the "quality" of his education.

Palin on the other hand had a higher education, never likely received any kind of affirmative action ...

If one is going to speculate on the race card contributing "affirmative actions" to Obama's successes, then it's equally reasonable to speculate that the beauty queen card may have offered unofficial "affirmative actions" to Palin's successes.

[screener]

Take this however you want.
I found it interesting and may go a long way to explaining a lot.
Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not my point.

My point is the this is the sort of question they ask of conservatives whose intelligence they want to put into doubt, by showing that they may not read all things accepted by the intellectual elite as making you smart.

again what are the correct / incorrect magazine?

why haven't "they" asked newt what magazines he reads? he's suppose to be smart right?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They don't ask it of a guy whose educational credentials are questionable, who shows an inability to get some basic facts like how many states there are right, and doesn't seem very confident in expressing himself in public without prepared statements. It's clear that it's because they have no desire to make him look less smart that he APPEARS to be, because they are subtle part of his campaign and are co-conspirators in fooling the public that this guy is some kind of middle of the road political genius.

so, is obama an intellectual elite or not? you can't have it both ways right?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Which is what I think most politicians are ALWAYS prone to do, and NOT what she was originally being accused of before all the smart media elites had it explained to them that Revere actually did also warn the British in addition to those they were seeking to attack.

If they are going to criticize Palin for trying to score political points by spinning the facts in a way that helps her, then they really need to do that with everyone. Politicians do that on an almost hourly basis. Every time a Democrat tries to spin a vote to curb spending as a Republican wanting to make Grandma and Grandpa have to resort to eating dogwood, or go without medication, should be played over and over to shown the same sort of thing.

Most people were not born yesterday. Smart folks understand why Palin is always singled out, and it has little to do with her intelligence or lack thereof. It's about fear. It's the same thing they tried to do to Reagan, and he always got the last laugh, and Palin is likely to as well. That's because she is right on the issues, and people will always support that.

stu

do you support all conservatives or are there ones that you don't like as much?

and, could one of them be kinda dumb? at least one?

[besson3c]

I think this thread definitely makes the stupendousman highlight reel, along with the gays being normal thread and Obama's birth certificate thread.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Possible coherent answer:

"We enjoyed learning about the history of our great country and seeing the home of a great patriot, Paul Revere. We also had some fantastic cannoli."

love it...perfect...but i think this was happening in her head...

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

"We enjoyed learning about the history of our great country and seeing the home of a great patriot, Paul Revere...

wait, they are testing me!!!

He who warned, uh, the … the

blink::blink::blink <--- true, just watch the video

British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, (YES!!!)

uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um,

bells right?...yes

by makin’ sure that as he’s ♬ ridin’ his horse through town ♬

to

to what??? ummmm to

send those warnin’ shots and bells (!!!)...let's reread that again..."to send those warnin’ shots and bells"....right on!

that, uh,

uh...what??? that...

we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free …

I was hoping for a stake dinner when I met Trump...

and we were gonna be armed.


"

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c

I think this thread definitely makes the stupendousman highlight reel, along with the gays being normal thread and Obama's birth certificate thread.

You think?

Delusional - the state of holding a persistent false belief that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

I think that pretty much sums up Stu's commentary as of late. What else can you call someone who actually contends that a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law School has no "educational achievements"?

OAW

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not my point.

My point is the this is the sort of question they ask of conservatives whose intelligence they want to put into doubt, by showing that they may not read all things accepted by the intellectual elite as making you smart.

snip--------

stu

if i may sum up our discussion...

the lame stream media seems to have a habit of asking conservatives what magazines they read in order to show that the person is not smart (ie "accepted by the intellectual elite")

right?

This very premise makes me think that there is a psychological issue with intelligence.

that is, you ASSUME that the conservative will say something that will not sound smart...in this case magazines they read...

for god's sake please let me know what are the politically correct/incorrect magazines !!! please!

also, i know of no other attempts to ask an office holder what magazines they read...please send me links!

am i right?

[ebuddy]

While I hate to admit...

Originally Posted by ironknee

wait, they are testing me!!!

He who warned, uh, the … the

blink::blink::blink <--- true, just watch the video

British that they weren’t gonna be takin’ away our arms, (YES!!!)

uh, by ringin’ those bells and, um,

bells right?...yes

by makin’ sure that as he’s ♬ ridin’ his horse through town ♬

to

to what??? ummmm to

send those warnin’ shots and bells (!!!)...let's reread that again..."to send those warnin’ shots and bells"....right on!

that, uh,

uh...what??? that...

we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free …

I was hoping for a stake dinner when I met Trump...

and we were gonna be armed.

... loved it.

Although I'm not sure how the Homer Simpson vs Betty Boop conversation is supposed to play out. Perhaps neither one should be President.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I hate to admit...


... loved it.

Although I'm not sure how the Homer Simpson vs Betty Boop conversation is supposed to play out. Perhaps neither one should be President.

ebuddy,

if we can smile together, then the republicans and democrats can work together

let's hope

[andi*pandi]

This is a beautiful moment for the Pol/War Lounge.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

love it...perfect...but i think this was happening in her head...

Oh now that was pure comedy gold right there!

OAW

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

True, but that's because politicians are always campaigning. I thought you said she wasn't going to run for President?

Is "President" the only thing one can campaign for? Don't a lot of people "campaign" to push certain issues? Like say, gun owner's rights? I think so. Again - Mountain > Molehill.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

If one is going to speculate on the race card contributing "affirmative actions" to Obama's successes, then it's equally reasonable to speculate that the beauty queen card may have offered unofficial "affirmative actions" to Palin's successes.

Totally reasonable.

I don't think that either had a resume that didn't require closer scrutiny, for the job of President.

However, that wasn't really the job Palin was asking for.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

[B][SIZE="4"]again what are the correct / incorrect magazine

Let's say she doesn't read any magazines, but is a high user or newspapers and/or books for information?

If she answers "none," then they snicker. Dumb broad.

If she does the above but reads "Guns and Ammo" and "Good Housekeeping," they use that for snicker material as well. One of those "Guns and Religion" nuts.

If she reads just the "American Spectator" and "Stars and Stripes," the criticism is that she doesn't seem to have much intellectual curiosity as evidenced by the lack of diversity in how she keeps abreast of current events.

I could go on and on. AGAIN, there's a reason why conservatives are asked these questions and those on the left are not, and it's based on biased assumptions and hypocritical standards used in order to put the conservatives in a bad light.

Is this really all that complicated? I mean...if you can show me where a single major liberal candidate where asked one of these types of questions, maybe there would be a debate regarding the motives for such a question. I don't know of any that have been asked, however.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think this thread definitely makes the stupendousman highlight reel, along with the gays being normal thread and Obama's birth certificate thread.

There is no need for a besson3c highlight reel, since he regurgitates the same lame attacks and substance free posts over and over. It would help if they were funny, but we don't even get that!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think that pretty much sums up Stu's commentary as of late. What else can you call someone who actually contends that a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law School has no "educational achievements"?

Could you actually quote where I made that claim? Where I say that Obama has "no educational achievements?"

If you can't, could you mind just going back to the small, kids card table and letting the adults at the big table continue the conversation?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Although I'm not sure how the Homer Simpson vs Betty Boop conversation is supposed to play out. Perhaps neither one should be President.

Bingo.

Neither are/where the best choice for the office. However, Palin has never (yet) ran for the office that the other guy with little experience (and a lack of understanding on some basic concepts) got voted into, and showed how such a lack experience can create a big political disaster.

There was one guy who wasn't really a doofus or didn't have a light resume last round. That guy didn't get the job. It's clear that the stuff that the left wants to pin on Palin doesn't disqualify someone on their side, so it shouldn't on the other either. I'm being pretty consistent, while the Obama supporters/Palin bashes really can't make that claim.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Let's say she doesn't read any magazines, but is a high user or newspapers and/or books for information?

i'd respect that.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If she answers "none," then they snicker. Dumb broad.

no, i could imagine..."oh, i don't have time to read magazines since i'm so busy."

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If she does the above but reads "Guns and Ammo" and "Good Housekeeping," they use that for snicker material as well. One of those "Guns and Religion" nuts.

guns and ammo would fit her mama grizzly image, no?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If she reads just the "American Spectator" and "Stars and Stripes," the criticism is that she doesn't seem to have much intellectual curiosity as evidenced by the lack of diversity in how she keeps abreast of current events.

her base would love that!

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I could go on and on. AGAIN, there's a reason why conservatives are asked these questions and those on the left are not, and it's based on biased assumptions and hypocritical standards used in order to put the conservatives in a bad light.

sister sarah is the only person running for office that i know of who was asked about magazines...do u have others to share?

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Is this really all that complicated? I mean...if you can show me where a single major liberal candidate where asked one of these types of questions, maybe there would be a debate regarding the motives for such a question. I don't know of any that have been asked, however.

again, are there anyone on the left or right who was asked the magazine question besides sarah?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Could you actually quote where I made that claim? Where I say that Obama has "no educational achievements?"

If you can't, could you mind just going back to the small, kids card table and letting the adults at the big table continue the conversation?

Sure thing ....

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Again, remember my argument isn't that Palin has the best resume or is the smartest in pack - just that compared to Obama, she really doesn't have to try that hard to compete. He's a guy who accomplished little ...

Originally Posted by stupendousman

They don't ask it of a guy whose educational credentials are questionable ....

Originally Posted by stupendousman

Obama did not start with an "ivy league" school. All indications are that prior to getting into Columbia he wasn't all that hot of a student, so I doubt he got there on his own merits. He won't release a thing in regards to college transcripts or papers who supposedly wrote which got him his grades. We know he had some wealthy benefactors pushing him along the way during the course of his higher education, and it's really unlikely that advantage, plus other affirmative actions didn't play a role in the "quality" of his education. So, comparing his education to Palin's, while hiding just about everything we could use to judge his actual performance in school doesn't tell us a lot about it. It's essentially resume fluff

Originally Posted by stupendousman

He has very little real world experience or accomplishments that would show exception leadership or intelligence. Everything he got he very well could have received due to connections, money and other affirmative action help. Getting special help and treatment in school, and having political friends in high places will GET YOU places, it won't however accomplish goals for you after you get yourself put into place.

..and writing books that are almost always "ghostwritten", by either, isn't really all that much of accomplishment. Especially when Obama had barely took political office before their was interest in him writing a biography. The man was handed achievement, and to his credit he took advantage and credit it for it. That however isn't really impressive when you look for "depth" on a resume.

So what you've made abundantly clear here is that you think President Obama is man who has "accomplished little" ... never mind the fact that he became POTUS which is an incontrovertible accomplishment in and of itself ... whose "educational credentials are questionable" ... despite the fact that he graduated from not one but two Ivy League universities ... who you "doubt got there on his own merits" and find it unlikely that "affirmative actions didn't play a role in the "quality" of his education" because he has "very little real world experience or accomplishments that would show exception leadership or intelligence" ... of course graduating Magna Cum Laude from the #1 university in America and #2 university in the world is not indicative of being intelligent in the wingnut worldview these days especially if you are black ... because naturally he must have received "affirmative action help". How else could he have done such a thing? So at the end of the day for you "the man was handed achievement".

I think that fairly sums up your position here. At best you are dismissive of his educational credentials and at worst you think he's an unintelligent person who's had everything handed to him. And if he had everything handed to him well then by implication that would mean that he hasn't made any educational achievements on his own, n'est-ce pas?

So I stand by my observation of your commentary as of late ....

Delusional - the state of holding a persistent false belief that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary

What is that evidence you might ask?

Harvard Law School — not reported, but 10% of class graduates magna cum laude with a GPA slightly above an A-minus (roughly the equivalent of a 3.72) or higher; the next 30% graduates cum laude with a GPA between a B+ and an A-minus (roughly the equivalent of a 3.55 or higher);[82] the current grading system of dean's scholar, honors, pass, low pass, and fail has a recommended curve of 37% dean's scholar and honors, 55% pass, and 8% low pass in classes with over 30 JD and LLM students[83]

List of law school GPA curves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course, even though Harvard Law School has confirmed that President Obama graduated magna cum laude which would rank him among the top 10% of students at the #1 ranked university in America ... you persist with the stupidity.

OAW

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Bingo.

Neither are/where the best choice for the office. However, Palin has never (yet) ran for the office that the other guy with little experience (and a lack of understanding on some basic concepts) got voted into, and showed how such a lack experience can create a big political disaster.

There was one guy who wasn't really a doofus or didn't have a light resume last round. That guy didn't get the job. It's clear that the stuff that the left wants to pin on Palin doesn't disqualify someone on their side, so it shouldn't on the other either. I'm being pretty consistent, while the Obama supporters/Palin bashes really can't make that claim.

then why do you defend her so vehemently?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But of course, even though Harvard Law School has confirmed that President Obama graduated magna cum laude which would rank him among the top 10% of students at the #1 ranked university in America

You forget, for some people Harvard/Ivy is a bad thing. Intellektewahl elite and all. And if he did well he must have had someone else writing his papers. But even if he did do well on his own, it was at Harvard, and is double-plus ungood. No winning.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If she answers "none," then they snicker. Dumb broad.

When I interview for jobs in my field, they often ask which books and journals I've read/am reading. This is not with the intent to make me look dumb. The intent is to learn how I keep up with the current developments in my field.

I always answer that I don't read books or journals, because I don't have the time, the journals are too dated and the books are more about filling page counts than about being useful (and are even more dated than the journals).

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Sure thing ....

So what you've made abundantly clear here is that you think President Obama is man who has "accomplished little" ... never mind the fact that he became POTUS which is an incontrovertible accomplishment in and of itself ... whose "educational credentials are questionable" ... despite the fact that he graduated from not one but two Ivy League universities ... who you "doubt got there on his own merits" and find it unlikely that "affirmative actions didn't play a role in the "quality" of his education" because he has "very little real world experience or accomplishments that would show exception leadership or intelligence" ... of course graduating Magna Cum Laude from the #1 university in America and #2 university in the world is not indicative of being intelligent in the wingnut worldview these days especially if you are black ... because naturally he must have received "affirmative action help". How else could he have done such a thing? So at the end of the day for you "the man was handed achievement".

I think that fairly sums up your position here. At best you are dismissive of his educational credentials and at worst you think he's an unintelligent person who's had everything handed to him. And if he had everything handed to him well then by implication that would mean that he hasn't made any educational achievements on his own, n'est-ce pas?

So I stand by my observation of your commentary as of late ....



What is that evidence you might ask?



List of law school GPA curves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But of course, even though Harvard Law School has confirmed that President Obama graduated magna cum laude which would rank him among the top 10% of students at the #1 ranked university in America ... you persist with the stupidity.

OAW

Sure, but he never actually said the exact words of "no educational achievements".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

if you can show me where a single major liberal candidate where asked one of these types of questions, maybe there would be a debate regarding the motives for such a question. I don't know of any that have been asked, however.

Are you saying liberal candidates are never asked questions intended to show them as heavy taxers, bleeding hearts, militarily weak, etc?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Sure, but he never actually said the exact words of "no educational achievements".

Admittedly so.

If he had I would have used the quote tag. But I used what were intended to be "air quotes", which is a little difficult to convey in writing, to capture the GIST of his commentary. The logical conclusion one reaches by simply reading what he did actually say.

But if he wants to hang his hat on whether or not he used that EXACT PHRASE then whatever. Because he doesn't have a leg to stand on otherwise.

OAW

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by OAW 

But if he wants to hang his hat on whether or not he used that EXACT PHRASE then whatever. Because he doesn't have a leg to stand on otherwise.

OAW

Sure, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he were to take a page from his role models and attempt to double-down in an attempt to defend his assertion

Perhaps he'll attempt to claim a significant difference between "no educational achievements" and "accomplished little", "educational credentials are questionable", "doubt got there on his own merits", "unlikely that "affirmative actions didn't play a role in the "quality" of his education", "very little real world experience or accomplishments that would show exception leadership or intelligence" and "the man was handed achievement".

I certainly hope so! It'll be fun to watch!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

snip-----

Is this really all that complicated? I mean...if you can show me where a single major liberal candidate where asked one of these types of questions, maybe there would be a debate regarding the motives for such a question. I don't know of any that have been asked, however.

well, my point is that the question of what magazines you read is not that big a deal...

imo a softball question... for anyone

i don't understand why it's a gotcha question....no matter if they are on the left or right....right?

if msnbc asked sarah the magazine question...what's the motive?

if foxnews asked obama the magazine question...what's the motive?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Sure thing ....

Fail.

You didn't present a single quote where I said what you claimed I said.

If he had I would have used the quote tag. But I used what were intended to be "air quotes", which is a little difficult to convey in writing, to capture the GIST of his commentary. The logical conclusion one reaches by simply reading what he did actually say.

Saying that he "accomplished little" in regards to real-world experience isn't the same as saying he had no educational accomplishments. Neither is mentioning that his "educational credentials are questionable," when most information on his background shows he wasn't any kind of exceptional student prior to getting into a Ivy League school and yet somehow got in.

NONE of that equals "NO educational achievements." All of what you quoted could be true and him STILL have had SOME educational achievements.

There's nothing wrong with paraphrasing what someone claims. However, you can't (without intellectual dishonesty) simply attribute claims to someone and then quote other things out of context and claim that's what someone else said.

You pulled all that out of your ass, as you HOPED that was my argument and you're having a hard time against real one's I've forwarded. Much easier going against the ones you invent....

Originally Posted by OAW 

But of course, even though Harvard Law School has confirmed that President Obama graduated magna cum laude which would rank him among the top 10% of students at the #1 ranked university in America ... you persist with the stupidity.

How does a marginal student for whom there is no evidence they should even be eligible for an Ivy League school, who doesn't even know how many states there are in the union, graduate with honors from ANY institution of higher learning? Sounds implausible to me. That's not to say that he had no educational accomplishments or is in some way mentally deficient, but did his wealthy benefactors help him out, in some of the ways G.W. Bush was said to have gotten his Ivy League grad school degree? Or do they only hand out degrees and Ivy League educations to stupid Republicans you don't like?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

well, my point is that the question of what magazines you read is not that big a deal...

imo a softball question... for anyone

i don't understand why it's a gotcha question....no matter if they are on the left or right....right?

I explained it.

I illustrated how it's only done to one side.

If you still can't understand, I can no longer be of help to you.

AGAIN...why is it only asked of conservative politicians that it appears the media wants to question their intelligence?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Are you saying liberal candidates are never asked questions intended to show them as heavy taxers, bleeding hearts, militarily weak, etc?

Not usually. Not by the media. They are accused as such, but they usually aren't pressed hard on those subjects.

Can you point me in the direction of such questioning posed to Obama prior to the last election?