Independents: What do you think of Palin?

[Shayna]

@Parthol

Anyone else agree that there’s some subtle yet important distinction of meaning between the phrases “test of loyalty” and “loyalty test?” Seriously?

Uhm, no. That’s crazy talk.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

No difference whatsoever.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

My immediate thought, when seeing this particular hair bifurcated, was that “test of loyalty” leaves the door open for it to be almost anything that the authority chooses, even a spontaneous whim: As a test of loyalty, let’s see you kick that dachsund through a revolving door. While a “loyalty test” seems to connote something structured and standardized, given to multiple people: April 15, time for everybody to turn in their loyalty tests this year.

Now - I make no claim that this distinction is
[ul][li]Significant to the quesitn at hand (especially since Palin apparently "tested " the librarian repeatedly.)[/li][li]Generally accepted[/li][li]Or even specifically applicable to “loyalty”. In fact, the connotative distinction I am making might be nothing more than an echo from expressions of similar form.[/li][ol][li]Navigating a hairpin turn can be a test of driving[/li][li]But a driving test is required to obtain a driver’s license[/ul][/ol][/li]With all of the above, though, this still appears to be a monumental exercise of hair division. Not only does the repetition of the act argue strongly for a serious and premeditated exploration, the question itself seems horribly inept as an examination of political loyalty. Did Palin somehow come to the conlusion that the only reason somone might uphold the ethical standards of their profession would be if they were loyal to the previous regime? Parse teh semantics however you wish, I find both the inquiry and the explanation for the inquiry to be objectionable.

[Renee]

@Parthol

No. That’s absurd. They are two absolutely synonymous phrases. Making this kind of ridiculous assertion doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it. It only makes it clearer and clearer that you’re incapable of admitting you were wrong.

It’s one of those things I can’t believe I’m even arguing about. It’s at the level of someone arguing that “soda can” and “can of soda” actually have two different meanings.

In the interest of fairness, though, I invite anyone and everyone else reading this thread to comment. Anyone else agree that there’s some subtle yet important distinction of meaning between the phrases “test of loyalty” and “loyalty test?” Seriously?

Crikes.

I agree with you about the ridiculous loyalty test distinction, but I must quibble with the soda can thing. One can have an empty soda can, but a can of soda cannot be empty and remain a can of soda.

[Kevbo]

@vison

She kept making this face, I wish I could explain what it looked like to me, maybe I’m the only one who saw it, but it was sure as hell offputting.

This face?

[monavis]

@Harborwolf

I’m not trying to pick a nit or sell anyone on anything. I’m explaining my opinion and the reasons why I personally don’t think she’s qualified for the position.

I’ve said it before in another thread. I don’t think Obama is particularly experienced either and I’d have preferred it if he had waited until the next election cycle (4-8 years) to run. I’m voting for him because his approach to diplomacy and his political views run closer to mine than McCain’s

As for Palin’s positions, I may disagree with them but I can’t say that they make her unqualified/unfit to be the vice president any more than my disagreements with President Bush’s policies make him unqualified to be president. The question in this thread regarded fitness. That’s what I answered

Hope this clears things up.

Bush got to his second term, he had 4 years of actual experience as president, does this prove experience is needed, is the country in good shape? If this is true then experience would count, his catering to the religious right got him a base, but the country has suffered because of his big macho-cowboy image. if this is what the country wants then start to worry.

Monavis

[monavis]

I would add the discussions about Palin goes to show a lot about McCain’s incompetence when it comes to uniting the country. It distracts from McCain and makes it look like he wanted it that way. This way issues can be swept under the rug and using silly things like Obama’s reference to a pig with lipstick that Mccain used himself against Hillary in the primaries as sextest when Obama clearly used it against McCain’s policies. I think in the long run the country will see through it all. If not then the country will get another 4 years of the same.

Monavis

[Gyrate]

@monavis

I think in the long run the country will see through it all.

You must be new to America. Welcome! We don’t “see through” things round these parts - we just go with whatever our talking heads of choice are saying today.

What normally happens in an election year is: people vote for the person onto whom they are best able to project an image of competence they can believe. If that person wins, there follows a brief honeymoon period followed either by disillusionment or increasingly strained contortions of denial as reality fails to match the imagined outcome. If they lose, the person sulks and snipes for four years.

Or they just become bitter and either hold their noses and vote for whomever they think will do the least damage or refrain from voting at all.

Repeat every four years ad nauseum.

[tagos]

@monavis

I think in the long run the country will see through it all. If not then the country will get another 4 years of the same.

Monavis

We were told that about Bush and look where that got the whole damn world.

[monavis]

@Gyrate

You must be new to America. Welcome! We don’t “see through” things round these parts - we just go with whatever our talking heads of choice are saying today.

What normally happens in an election year is: people vote for the person onto whom they are best able to project an image of competence they can believe. If that person wins, there follows a brief honeymoon period followed either by disillusionment or increasingly strained contortions of denial as reality fails to match the imagined outcome. If they lose, the person sulks and snipes for four years.

Or they just become bitter and either hold their noses and vote for whomever they think will do the least damage or refrain from voting at all.

Repeat every four years ad nauseum.

I lived here 77 + years, and maybe I Think the majority of Americans are smart enough to see through all the political hash. At least I hope they are.

It is going to take some time to get the country out of the mess we are in no matter who gets elected. Our national debt is so high thanks to the Bush policies, if people vote for more of the same then you may be right.

Monavis

[monavis]

@tagos

We were told that about Bush and look where that got the whole damn world.

Right, and that is because people didn’t vote and let the fundies help him get in using the “We are in a war” theme. Well, we still are in a war and have made more enemies than friends.

Monavis

[Gyrate]

I remember during the 2004 election a reporter from the BBC was asking an Ohio voter, a middle-aged factory worker, who he was likely to vote for. His answer was along the lines of “We’re really hurting here - the past four years have seen a lot of jobs lost and the economy going downhill, and I don’t want to vote for Bush again but I think he’s more likely to keep us safe from the terrorists.”

If I have an unduly cynical view of the average American voter, there’s one reason why right there: because no matter how bad a job a politician does and how much he’s hurt you personally, he can always scare you into voting for him again.