Look, the fucking guy won’t even as much as acknowledge he owes an apology if proven wrong, much less offer to accept any sort of self-punishment, if it turns out that he’s totally full of shit, so what does that tell you about his sincerity in defending Palin here? It tells me that he’s deliberately, maliciously yanking people’s chains in the hope of riling people up. There’s got to be a term for doing that.
Here’s the exchange in question.
"COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- "
First of all, notice the pronoun, “we.” The definition of we is “I and the rest of the group that includes me.” Notice also that she was responding to a question, “Have you ever been involved with any negotiations…?” “You” referred to Palin herself. The question was what experience did Palin herself personally have. Palin responded with “we,” which in context and by definition means Palin herself alongside others. The only reasonable interpretation was that she was falsely trying to connect herself to trade negotiations involving Russia.
I understand that Palin’s garbled speech is sometimes very difficult to parse. I hope my links to definitions for “we” and “you” helps you understand what Palin said.
Ok. Let’s move on.
Here’s the excerpted exchange:
“GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”
So, no, the quote you’re looking for verbatim is not there. But she was being asked about her “insight into Russian actions,” which can be construed as a category that is at least clearly a subcategory of “foreign policy experience.” Her only answer to support herself was indeed that you can see Russian from Alaska. “I have foreign policy experience because I can see Russia from Alaska” is absolutely a justifiable paraphrase of what she said.
Oh, give me a break. If in an interview setting Obama were to say “we” got bin Laden, it would be idiocy to think he personally was member of the group that got bin Laden. Leaders use “we” all the time to talk about things that happened in their state, legislative body, or country under their watch. Plus, as a member of Alaska’s population her use of the term is also perfectly legitimate. You’re grasping at straws now.
So in other words she didn’t say it. Thank you. End of story.
Obama personally directed the planning and execution of the bin Laden hit. He was involved and giving orders every step of the way from the hunt, to the operation, to the burial at sea. It is fair for him to say “we.”
Palin had no involvement at any level or in any capacity with regards to treaties with Russia.
SA keep up the good work! I haven’t laughed so much in a thread for a long time.
I doubt very seriously that Obama “directed” the assault. Most likely his military advisors gave him and assortment of options and things to consider in choosing one, and he then did that. Which is all well and good, but I doubt that any civilian - or even most military personnel - would be in any sort of a position to “plan and direct” that sort of operation.
So if I’m proud of my state’s college football them and we win the national title and I brag that “we” kicked the other teams ass and won the championship, you and your cohort here on the board would interpret that as my claiming to have played in the game myself?
Glad to hear some good is resulting from the silly direction this thread has taken.
You are incorrect. He called the meetings, made the decisions and gave the orders. It was his operation. He was the boss
She was asked specifically if SHE had been involved in any negotiations with Russia. Her answer, to continue with your own analogy, was equivalent to being asked, “did you play college football,” and getting the answer, “we won the Rose Bowl.”
If someone asks “YOU” whether you did something, and you answer that question with “WE,” the plain, obvious implication is that YOU were involved.
Sometime you really should learn about the word “paraphrase.”
It sounds to me, especially given d8uv’s description of Palin’s first years in office, that she may have been involved at least to some degree in whatever agreements had been reached between Alaska and Russia, even if that degree only mean signing off on them. I don’t know. It is clear that she was trying to bluff her way along by giving nonanswers and speaking to things not part of the question. These days, unfortunately, every politician does that. Politicians like Hillary Clinton are notorious for it. But she didn’t have the polish to pull it off, as I said before upthread.
It isn’t a paraphrase; it’s an outright lie. And thanks to people like you and Joebuck20, this board is full of people who believe it.
I know. I would have thought you would put down the shovel and stop digging, but you keep on going.
If you’ll notice, around 99% of my posts are responses to things other posters have said to me. I’d be able to post a great deal less if only other posters would stop saying things to me that are wrong. 
Yep. This is pointless.
To be fair, it’s also provided by illustration a pretty good answer to the OP: Anyone still supporting Sarah Palin has gone through so many contortions to stay in that position that her quitting won’t make a difference.
(Note to SA: Just to save wear and tear on the hamsters, can we take as a given your response of “But I told you, I’m not a Palin supporter. I’m just a brave fighter for truth, justice and the American way. Which is pretty bloody difficult when you lesser mortals keep insisting that Palin answering a question about a foreign policy issue by citing Alaska’s proximity to Russia, then, when asked about it point blank by a different reporter, reaffirming her answer somehow constitutes her claiming that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience.”)
I think it’s more like “Wherever the goal posts happen to be, Mooselini has already passed them”.
-Joe
Yeah, I’ve said all this before on this board. Whether anybody pays any attention to it is another story. We lived through the Rise of $arah from 1998 (when I returned to Alaska) and 2009, when we retired and left the state. I knew people who worked for her and listened to their poor opinions of her. I was willing to forgive that when she appeared to be someone who was sincere and who buckled down to the job of Governor. It went to shit so quickly that everybody was stunned by it, and it quickly came to light just what a vindictive, ignorant nutjob she really is.
Since you’ve said something relatively smiley-faced about Palin, **Starving Artist ** is now your friend. My advice to him (as I will not address him directly again and get sucked into another pointless, circular, illogical discussion) is: defending her will not persuade her to have sex with him. My brother is gaga over the woman solely because he thinks she’s sex personified. He’s not going to sleep with her, either, but that doesn’t stop him from donning his rose-colored glasses.
That’s what I love about the morons trying to control the once ‘Grand Old Party’. They think the way to win America is to make their party smaller and more ideologically rigid in precisely the ways that destroy any possibility of winning a majority of the American people as a whole.
“Hey, let’s kick the moderates out of our party! We don’t need the centrist votes! We can win this thing on our small conservative base!”
Someday this will be explained to them and they’ll get that deer in the headlights look and pull out the old Chevy Chase as President Ford quote “I was told there would be no math”.
And don’t forget, “The voters chose McCain in the primaries over people like Huckabee, Romney, Tancredo, Guiliani, Keyes, Hunter, Paul, Thompson, and Brownback. And then in the general election, the voters chose Obama over McCain. So it’s clear what the voters want - a conservative candidate.”
I think this is uncalled for. While Starving Artist is blind to Palin’s flaws, I think it’s clear that he’s acting from ideological motives. There’s no reason to claim he’s just physically infatuated with Palin.
From the intro to the second Ford-Carter debate, Oct. 6, 1976:
“Thus, it [San Francisco] is an appropriate place to hold this debate, the subject of which is foreign and defense issues.”
(For the entire debate, see: CPD: October 6, 1976 Debate Transcript)
I’m sure **Starving Artist **has an explanation for how asking Carter to participate in an entire debate on foreign policy is nowhere near as arduous as Palin being expected to name the newspapers she reads.
It was made in jest (except in the case of my brother, who is truly infatuated with the woman). However, most of the men I knew in Alaska who were rabid supporters positively salivated over her looks and made it very clear why they liked her.