You still don’t get it. Sarah Palin claimed she knew all about Russia. Think about what the word “all” means. It’s not “something” or “a little bit”. It’s all. All. Everything. No objective person could listen to what she said and come away thinking she claimed to “know all about Russia”. And you’re still defending that mischaracterization instead of simply admitting that it was an inaccurate exaggeration. Why is that? To me it’s nuts, since SP is such a target rich environment, why would you need to invent a target that doesn’t exist instead of focusing on the hundreds of targets that do exist? The only explanation I can think of is that it doesn’t matter what accusation is flung at the other side. What’s more important than facts is to defend any statement that paints the other side in a bad light, instead of rejecting inaccuracies and focusing on the facts. Which is exactly the point that Deeg was making.
Just to be clear, are you claiming that it is never possible that one side is indeed worse than another, and/or that human bias always precludes us from distinguishing between whether the other side truly is horrible vs just simply thinking it is horrible?
Not to Godwinize the thread, but do you think that when the Nazis came to power, the people who were saying “You know, these Nazis seem a bit violent and extreme” were unjustified in saying so, since their biases were preventing them from correctly assessing how bad the Nazis were, and in fact, the Nazis opponents were guilty of just as many bad things as the Nazis?
You can replace Nazis with any other movement or political party throughout history that is generally recognized as having been bad.
And I’m not claiming “OMG, the Republicans are literally worse than Hitler!”. I’m just saying that the overall tone of several comments in this thread is “Woe is us, we can never judge who is being the bigger dick, since we are all biased”, and this is very clearly not the case when the differences between two sides are so stark that you have to perform mental gymnastics to equate the two sides.
Way I heard it was Obama was plotting to give Texas back but Mexico threatened war if he tried.
I can’t believe I’m reading this! Now we’re going to debate figures of speech in the English language? Seriously? That’s all you’ve got? When you hear the figure of speech “I know all about that”, do you take it to mean that the speaker claims to know literally absolutely everything, every detail, every nuance, every last thing that is known and ever and forever knowable about the subject? Really, that’s what you understand it to mean? Or do you interpret it, as everyone does, to mean that the person claims familiarity with the subject? As indeed Palin did, very clearly, and for just the reasons I stated.
If you think it serves your purpose or helps your side or your credibility in some incomprehensible way to dissect a colloquial expression I used and put an unnatural and ludicrously literal interpretation on it, then I already said that, since it makes no difference, I’m quite happy to withdraw it and substitute “claimed that being able to see Russia on a clear day enhanced her foreign policy credentials” and my entire argument remains exactly the same. Deeg’s examples FAIL because the conservatives’ mockery of Gore was bullshit based on a contrived lie that originated with the libertarian blogger Declan McCullagh and was eagerly picked up by the right-wing media like Fox, while the left’s mockery of Palin was well deserved because the claim in question was completely idiotic and she was, and remains, a complete imbecile. Which is exactly why Tina Fey’s parody was funny. Even funnier was how Palin went from the Gibson interview to the Couric interview and cheerfully doubled down on the stupid.
It is amusing, though, to watch conservatives jumping through hoops trying to prove that both sides of the political spectrum today are exactly the same.
It must be that comforting Minnesota accent that gives him that impression. I find it a bit distasteful to see the art of pedantry so poorly executed.
Wait. John Mace types with a Minnesota accent?
When someone asks you to quote the part where she says she “knows all about Russia”, why would you double down on insisting that expression was accurate instead of simply saying: You’re right, she didn’t say that. Because, well… SHE DIDN’T SAY THAT. You could then focus on the actual issue which was that she claimed proximity to Russia gave here some sort of knowledge about Russia without saying what that knowledge was.
So let me ask you… are you OK with me claiming that Maxine Waters said there were CIA agents selling crack cocaine on every street corner in LA?
I mean, “every street corner” is just an expression, right?
BTW, if you want to eliminate “everything” for a synonym for “all”, that’s fine. But when I hear someone say they know “all” about something, I damn well think they are claiming to know “a lot” about that thing, if not everything.
You don’t think that was Gov. Palin’s implication?
You think she meant it literally when she claimed to read “all” the newspapers?
Hey, guys, here’s a crazy idea. How about if you’re going to claim someone said something, you quote specifically what they said. Don’t paraphrase-- quote what the offending comments are. It’s hard enough for people to agree that a given quote must be interpreted a certain way, so why make that even harder by throwing in a paraphrase instead of the actual quote?
Let it go, John.
I think she was trying to imply some knowledge, but since she never told us what that knowledge was, I have no idea how much knowledge she was claiming.
I have no idea what she meant. But she said “all”, so if anyone wants to add that to the list of stupid things she’s said, I don’t see how anyone could object. I mean, even if she just meant “most” instead of “all”, that would be a laughable assertion.
And, in fact, she was dinged for that. Did everyone jump to her defense and say: Oh, she didn’t literally mean “all” so cut her some slack? No, they laughed at her and she deserved to be laughed at because she claimed something that wasn’t true. And that is the issue here, isn’t it? Let’s stick to claims that are factually correct.
Is the Sarah Palin issue really that important to devote the entire thread to it? She claimed to have foreign policy expertise based on the geographical proximity of Alaska and Russia and that from an island in Alaska, you can see Russia. It was mocked by Tina Fey on the SNL skit but nobody who paid attention criticized Palin for saying that line. She claimed to be a voracious newspaper reader by saying she reads all that are put in front of her. That is quite silly since she is obviously quite ill-read. I’m not sure why this is getting so much attention when the debate is whether “both sides do it”.
No, we laughed at her not because she answered “All”, but because the correct answer was obviously “None”.
The sooner you let it go, the better, 'kay?
No, that was not obviously the correct answer, and anyone here claiming that as a fact is wrong.
Give up facts? Thanks, but no thanks.
Speaking for myself (and Deeg can chime in if he wants), had those been the original claims about SP, we would not have had that little digression above. I can’t find anything fault in your post.
See how easy it is when we stick to facts?
Because Pubs were lambasted when they called Obama out on visiting 57 states. You see, when a Pubs says something it’s idiocy/lying. If a Dem does it it’s a misquote/honest mistake/taken out of context.
:shrug:
IME she was mocked not for claiming all knowledge (which was clearly a figure of speech), but for claiming (via that figure of speech) a large amount of knowledge based on something idiotic.
Not even her fiercest detractors laughed at her for using “all” when she meant “a lot.” They laughed at her for meaning “a lot.”
He meant to say 47 states or perhaps 57 contests when you account for the territories. One time slip of the tongue. Palin repeatedly doubled down on her claim that geographical proximity gave her foreign policy expertise.
I’m with John on this one! I realize that his is a bold position, but I have never been one to shrink from an extreme position simply because it is too outlandish, and am firmly prepared to withstand the scorn and derision it is likely to attract.
You know what we could do? We could start a custom here whereby we call upon each other to verify facts by citation by using some pithy and succinct phrase, something along the lines of “Can you offer us a citation for those remarks?”.