I suppose I was a little unfair to Mrs. Palin. Let’s include some context. Specifically, let’s look at her understanding of the Vice President’s job the month before she was offered it:
Here is what is so excellent about that. It’s not that she perhaps forgot the name of a newspaper or two. When questioned about what was viewed as naivete, or complete lack of curiosity about the world, considering she never even had a passport until the previous year, she rebutted that she’d formed her opinion from reading. She’s always been a working gal whose parents never gave her money for exploring Europe, but she educated herself, which formed her view of the world. When asked what, exactly, she’d read that informed and shaped her view of the world, she said this:
If your question is, “What, specifically?” that was Couric’s too!
:dubious:
When pressed…
Okay, lady, we get that there are newspapers in AK. You said your view was formed by reading newspapers, books and magazines. Which? Oh wait, you answered that already; all of them. With a great appreciation for the press too!
That’s actually part of the title of the most recent book by liberal (and for me somewhat tedious) commentator Jim Hightower: Swim Against the Current: Even a Dead Fish can go With the Flow. Came out in 2008, so pre-dates her resignation speech. Is that from where she copped the line? No idear.
I have to admit, I had to check wikipedia to find out why the Korean peninsula had been divided, though I never had a problem understanding the differences between the two republics.
Whatever happened to basing your opinion on fact instead of trying to find facts to support your already existing opinion? You do realize those lists of logical fallacies you see floating around aren’t meant to be a checklist of things to do in a debate, right? If you want examples of ad hominem, willful confirmation bias, cherry picking, appeal to belief, appeal to ridicule, hasty generalizations, or other examples of idiocy in public communication, I’d suggest re-reading the OP rather than looking through Palin’s speeches.
There was a thread a while back about the inherent correctness of the VP being “in charge” of the senate. While the nuanced accuracy is debatable, only the most vulgar partisan could claim that she was anything more than a broken clock. To sit back and fling claims that pointing out the absolute absurdity of her statement is tantamount to ignorance is extremist–extremely blind or extremely disingenuous.
If you wish to present a reasoned, evidence-based conclusion that Sarah Palin is an ignoramus instead of taking part in a thread that STARTS with that as the base belief then proceeds to desperately seek out evidence justifying the pre-made conclusion, I invite you to do so now.