Cite?
You want a cite for Starving Artist acting like an asshole? Where have YOU been?
Or do you want a cite that he’s acting like an asshole, rather than being one genetically?
I think the question and** Starving Artist’s *response highlight a dichotomy between left and right expectations. Psychobunny noted it in her last paragraph, but it’s possible to strip away some of the negativity to see that the both views are defensible. Not that both sides can’t still deride each other and think the other is off their rocker for not seeing things their way, and not that there isn’t plenty of room for blending the two viewpoints, but * in general, you have two outlooks prioritized differently:
[ol][li]Office holders who are steeped in and adept at policy analysis will make better, more informed decisions. Contextual awareness is a crucial factor to this. [/li][li]Office holders who have an intuitive sense of right and wrong—one that most agrees with the voter’s sensibilities—will make better decisions overall. Contextual awareness is only necessary on a decision-by-decision basis.[/ol][/li]
That smart, well-informed people have made notoriously bad decisions in the past greatly undercuts the perceived necessity of being well-informed to make good decisions. In addition, there is the necessity that a candidate share your intuition about right and wrong—someone who is well informed but holds values that are antithetical to your own is not a good voting choice.
The SDMB obviously places an enormous amount of importance on the first one. How this evolved to be the predominant prioritization only of the left–and the significant downgrading of it by the right–is an open question. I suspect it’s a combined result of talk radio/Fox news finding and expanding a particular market segment and motivating them to the polls, but that’s a GD topic.
I find it sad that the mass-market political culture on the right has evolved to apparently pay little heed to the first: We end up with candidates like O’donnell. Imagine for a moment that O’donnell was a protege of Buckley instead of Palin.
Here’s me pushing.
And as a point of information.
You act like an asshole every time you express one of your retarded (and I do suspect I’m using this term correctly in your case as you quack like a duck) opinions as fact whilst ignoring real facts.
Look man, the fact that he used his own attempted sexual assault of a little girl as an attack on the all-pervasive evil of libruls has no bearing on whether or not he’s an asshole.
-Joe
Yea - I forgot the ‘Evil Liberals made me a sexual predator’ nonsense.
Cite?
Why stop there?
“Mr. Paladino, what Y-chromosome haplogroup is most widely represented among the African-American community?”
“Mr. DeMint, what is the square root of 4, 221?”
Of course, none of these questions is remotely as unfair as:
“Mrs. Palin, what newspapers do you read?” or “What Supreme Court decisions do you agree with?”
Fuck that lamestream media and its gotcha questions!
That’ll be $20, please.
Not going to dig for it, and I’m sure that plenty of people have it bookmarked and will be along shortly.
Basically, the story goes “I asked my old man about sex and he showed me some porn so I tried to have sex with the eight year-old down the street. Therefore sex ed is evil, and because liberals support it they also support things like trying to fuck eight year-olds”.
-Joe
Starving Artist linked to cites in the election forum thread that shows this is a common malapropism. I’d never heard it until this debate. People say the dumbest things.
In Russia, Georgia, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, and a whole bunch of -istans that I can’t recite off the top of my head.
The Soviet Union didn’t go away until late 1991. Don’t you remember the “Gang of Eight” coup attempt as the last major event of the Soviet Union?
I would be stunned if China did not have a plan to do just that.
And I would be stunned to discover that the US didn’t have a plan to take over China.
I am confident that the US has a plant to occupy Antarctica. That’s what defense organizations do. They create contingency plans for a whole host of exceedingly unlikely scenarios.
Fair enough. Fact remains though, that the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989…
Monsanto been working on a cold-resistant strain of kudzu?
Christine O’Donnell is an idiot.
There is nothing remotely unfair about asking about recent Supreme Court cases you agree (or disagree) with. Even if you can’t recall the case styling, you can answer the question with, “Well, I didn’t like the land confiscation decision a few years ago,” or “The campaign finance decision was a good one.”
Lichen. Enormous, mobile lichen.
But you didn’t hear it from me.
You’ve gotta realize though that we’re in the zone where simply asking a candidate what they read is spun into a tricksy “gotcha” question by the nasty liberal media.
Yes, but nobody talks about them. While she may be factually correct, the fact that she is bringing up the Chinese plan clearly implies that the Chinese intend to put their crazy plan into action.
There’s probably a British plan to invade the US too, but there aren’t any Senatorial candidates wringing their hands over it.
Yes, militarily. But the Soviets still supported Mohammad Najibullah until 1992, and the CIA continued to fund the Mujahideen through 1991 at least.
Then the proper criticism is not “Look at the crazy woman saying there’s a plan!” but rather “Look at the crazy woman insinuating that this is a serious issue.”
This pattern is disturbing. It’s as though the decision is made that since she’s an idiot, any criticism of her may be made, whether factual or not.
Look at the snickers above about her claims that we fought against Soviet interests in the 80s and 90s. Ha! Ha! What a moron she is, saying the Soviets were around in the 90s!
What’s that? Oh? They were?
Well, they weren’t involved in Afganistan in the 1990s.
Oh. They were.
Well, that’s a reasonable mistake, one that anyone can make.
:rolleyes:
When she makes the error, she’s an idiot. But I am willing to bet that we won’t see similar condemnations against the posters here who, it turns out, were actually the ones in error on the claim.
How about we stick to actual, factual reasons to dismiss Ms. O’Donnell? She has given us no shortage of those.