^^^I just reread my post number 100 and realized what a damning with faint praise it is. Well, it is what it is.
You mean, of course, "she's seriously undereducated, and manifestly too mentally lazy to do what is necessary to become educated on the critical governing issues of the nation" because...you disagree with her positions.
And, now, we have yours and George Wills' opinion on the matter. There are those that differ.
I see the savvy part; the other two, no so much.
Again, a reasonable opinion; based wholly on a liberal characterization of Bush, Cheney, and the Bush Administration.
Nothing will dissuade you from this position -- because, if it could, that would have happened long ago.
But, his two terms are over and there's just not much import to such nonsense anymore. President Bush is enjoying retirement.
No, I see Sarah Palin is seriously undereducated on the issues not because I disagree with her as much as she doesn't HAVE a defined position. She has pla udes. That is different than positions.
Yoni, you are the one that brought up Bush, not me.
And, this may shock you terribly, but I VOTED for George W. as Governor of Texas and I voted for him the first time as President. I didn't vote for him the second time because the reason for the Iraq war was based on factors I couldn't support, and because he was a traitor to fiscal conservatism. He left the Wars (both of them) out of the budget, never vetoed one damn spending bill put forth by the spendthrift republican congress of the day, and clearly didn't care about balanced budgets.
What did you know about Barack Obama before he became a candidate?
How many times did he vote present when he was a Senator? And, were you aware that, when he did vote, he had the most liberal voting record of any Senator? Even Bernie Sanders?
You know even less about Obama's positions.
Again, you don't know Sarah Palin. You certainly don't know her positions other than what a mocking media and critical left are pushing. If you had a personal relationship with her, that'd be different but, you don't.
Your opinions are informed by whatever sources you choose to believe.
I'm not shocked at all.
Then you should be mindful that people who vote for different parties in different elections tend to be properly labled 'independent' rather than 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
"Moderate" comes to mind.
Moderates get us nowhere. They spoil elections and get us people like Barack Obama as president.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the problem with American Government.
Actually, I do know ( and did during the election) about Barack Obama's tendency to vote 'present' (which, by the way, characterized his voting during his time in the Illinois congress more than his time in the U.S. congress). I was keenly (and frighteningly) aware that he was 'too liberal' for me.
I was, and am now, also aware that virtually all presidents govern more centrally than they campaign, UNLESS they have a congress of their own parrty. Just as Bush had a congress of his own party (and governed fromt he far right during his first term), and just as Clinton had a congress of his own party for his first two years, Obama had a congress of his own party for the first two years. This virtually always results in bad government, in my estimation.
I am happy that the congress went right, so that Obama will be forced to go right.
I knew about McCain's positions during the election, and I knew about Palin's ignorance during the election. I heard McCain forgo positions he had maintained for years in order to appeal to his far-right base. I watched him make two horribly bad judgements: one was the position he took on tarp and his inability to lead his own party on it, and the second was the choice of Palin. Both were bad omens for his judgments as President.
Yoni, you really don't know what I know or from whence I know it. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
You know precisely what the sources you choose to consume tell you to know about things of which you have no personal knowledge or involvement.
The we have very little else to say to one another.
D'okie dokie, have a nice day.
Whatever Bush's education, he usually eschewed that background and governed using a combination of intuition, emotion and Christian mysticism ("God told me to do it."). IOW, he governed more like a stereotypical woman than anything else. His better-educated and previously more thoughtful underlings like Andrew Card and Condi Rice became sycophantic cheerleaders for him because he just seemed so damn sure of himself.
Ended up getting a lot of Americans killed unnecessarily -- and that is unforgivable forever.
I can see why yoni wants another sterotypical woman running the country again.
Not only is there a lack of intellectual curiosity, but also a championing of a lack of intellectual curiosity.
Ignorance is strength.
i think we can all agree that sarah palin is slightly more intelligent than her supporters. lol
Here's a national treasure, Politically Incorrect BM, trashing with fatal accuracy the ignorant s like pitbull , her Real America, tea baggers, bubbas, red-staters, and all the fantasies they lie to themselves with
Bill Maher lashes out at ‘Teabaggers’ identification with ‘Founding Fathers’
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/b...nding-fathers/
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
