[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Sarah Pants on Fire
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can you name them? If so, did they give him the kind of What is the speed velocity of a hummingbird's wings questions that Palin got? Anytime Obama is confronted with off-the-cuff questions he hems and haws and stumbles and mumbles TEN TIMES worse than anything Palin has done. But everyone in the media treats him with kid gloves. What a big, fat, fucking baby. Wah-wah-wah. Palin's winking was quite entertaining during her debate with Biden, but I'd rather not have a woman, who's said e.g. to believe tha world is less than 10 k year old, to have the right to decide whether to press THE BUTTON, on not wink wink . ;D That's quite likely gonna be the case, sooner or later, if McCain gets elected.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Sarah Pants on Fire
(snip) Palin's winking was quite entertaining during her debate with Biden, but I'd rather not have a woman, who's said e.g. to believe tha world is less than 10 k year old, to have the right to decide whether to press THE BUTTON, on not wink wink . ;D That's quite likely gonna be the case, sooner or later, if McCain gets elected. (snip) This is why he will not win. He cannot win. There's too much at stake. The cards are stacked against him. He is the last of the LBJ/Nixon/Reagan/Bush regime. We are living in a different time, now. She will go back to Alaska. He will go back to the Senate. All will be well with the world. The whole of humanity is looking forward to the Obama Presidency. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Sarah Pants on Fire
According to factcheck.org, both Biden and Palin are guilty of getting their facts wrong in the debate. Here's their full fact check on the debate: http://tinyurl.com/4fpela --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But whats Truth got to do with it? Sarah Palin set a new standard Thursday night. I was in awe. Speaking right into the camera, smiling, winking, and gosh darn it blatently lying to the American people and world. With her skills she could easily be a corporate PR heavy pulling in over a mil a year. Lying skills like that are rare and well-prized. And she is soo much better a liar than Bush. With Bush -- its so clear he is lying. Palin adds some bubbly sweet mystery to it all. It does bring up the moral question: is it a lie if you say it but don't know its a lie? I think that is the case with Sarah. She can be (and not act) so sincere because she is just puking out what handlers have fed her. I don't think she knows she's lying. Does that make it OK? Or worse -- that she is so uninformed she can't distinguish a cooked-up lies from sanity and truth? (But she pukes in such a cute way -- reminds me of some gf's as I held their head over he toilet bowl -- she on her knees. Very endearing and cute. Except when she hit my shoes. ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: [snip] I was talking to a friend today about debates and I mentioned the gaffe of Biden saying FDR on TV in 1929 (yes I was defending media treatment of Palin Shemp, as I often do --- up to a point.) My friend pointed out that FD Roosevelt was Governer of New York in 1929, and I found out that New York city did have regular TV broadcasting from 1928 on, and it is HIGHLY LIKELY that in the city where the stock exchange crashed that the Governere would go on radio and TV to make speeches about it. Sounds like Coulter is talking through her ass again, and Shemp is swallowing it hook line a sinker. Looks like Biden was right. OffWorld Yes, it's correct that there were regular broadcasts of what could pass as television in New York from 1928 on but only in the most limited sense of both words. They were one-inch screens and the whole enterprise was of an experimental nature. And the broadcasts were local, not state-wide. There is no evidence nor any documentation that FDR made any TV broadcasts (or radio broadcasts for that matter) in 1928 or 1929. However, an early kinetoscope of one of FDR's TV broadcasts has been making the rounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR3ilZAWHw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Sarah Pants on Fire
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to factcheck.org, both Biden and Palin are guilty of getting their facts wrong in the debate. Those fact-checks comparing Biden to Palin in the debate, are more like comparing the gravitous weight of the Obama mistake that he had been married 16 years, not 15, compared to McCain's consitent lies about his own voting record, and stinging character assinations of Obama. They are of whole a different order of fact discrepancy OffWorld Here's their full fact check on the debate: http://tinyurl.com/4fpela http://tinyurl.com/4fpela --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , new.morning no_reply@ wrote: But whats Truth got to do with it? Sarah Palin set a new standard Thursday night. I was in awe. Speaking right into the camera, smiling, winking, and gosh darn it blatently lying to the American people and world. With her skills she could easily be a corporate PR heavy pulling in over a mil a year. Lying skills like that are rare and well-prized. And she is soo much better a liar than Bush. With Bush -- its so clear he is lying. Palin adds some bubbly sweet mystery to it all. It does bring up the moral question: is it a lie if you say it but don't know its a lie? I think that is the case with Sarah. She can be (and not act) so sincere because she is just puking out what handlers have fed her. I don't think she knows she's lying. Does that make it OK? Or worse -- that she is so uninformed she can't distinguish a cooked-up lies from sanity and truth? (But she pukes in such a cute way -- reminds me of some gf's as I held their head over he toilet bowl -- she on her knees. Very endearing and cute. Except when she hit my shoes. ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: [snip] I was talking to a friend today about debates and I mentioned the gaffe of Biden saying FDR on TV in 1929 (yes I was defending media treatment of Palin Shemp, as I often do --- up to a point.) My friend pointed out that FD Roosevelt was Governer of New York in 1929, and I found out that New York city did have regular TV broadcasting from 1928 on, and it is HIGHLY LIKELY that in the city where the stock exchange crashed that the Governere would go on radio and TV to make speeches about it. Sounds like Coulter is talking through her ass again, and Shemp is swallowing it hook line a sinker. Looks like Biden was right. OffWorld Yes, it's correct that there were regular broadcasts of what could pass as television in New York from 1928 on but only in the most limited sense of both words. They were one-inch screens and the whole enterprise was of an experimental nature. And the broadcasts were local, not state-wide. There is no evidence nor any documentation that FDR made any TV broadcasts (or radio broadcasts for that matter) in 1928 or 1929. However, an early kinetoscope of one of FDR's TV broadcasts has been making the rounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR3ilZAWHw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR3ilZAWHw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Sarah Pants on Fire
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to factcheck.org, both Biden and Palin are guilty of getting their facts wrong in the debate. Here's their full fact check on the debate: http://tinyurl.com/4fpela A lot of the fact misstatements are due to ineadequate time to explain context and the fuller issues. Short cut statments need to be made in 90 seconds. I didn't hear anything from Biden that was applaulling or which could not have been clarified with more time. I did from palin. She made BOLD FACED lies. Winking and smiling and darn tootin it up as she did so. He is less scrupulous than a used car salesman in a navy town when the ship is in. 1) She repeated said Obama would raise taxes on regular people, the middle class. Thats a bold, bald-faced lie if you define middle class as making under 250k a year. (I know MCain defines it as making less than 5 mil -- but that speaks for itself. Obama proposes a tax cut for those making under $125 k. She was lying through her teeth -- but maybe its ok -- she winked. (which is NOT blinking mind you) 2) She said McCain would lower taxes for everyone in the audience. He is not lowering their marginal tax rate for personal income -- which her words imply. He does propose lowering business taxes and capital gains / dividends. That is NOT what her statement said or implied. (Actually, I am for a subset of that -- to eliminate double taxation. Tax income once -- either a business tax or dividend tax; and income or capital gains made from saved income -- but not both.) 3) Energy policy -- some bold faced lies about the obama energy plan -- and the merits of the mcCain plan. 4) Having a time table for Iraq is the white flag of surrender -- I guess Bush and the president of Iraq are raising the white flag of surrender then. There were more. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote: But whats Truth got to do with it? Sarah Palin set a new standard Thursday night. I was in awe. Speaking right into the camera, smiling, winking, and gosh darn it blatently lying to the American people and world. With her skills she could easily be a corporate PR heavy pulling in over a mil a year. Lying skills like that are rare and well-prized. And she is soo much better a liar than Bush. With Bush -- its so clear he is lying. Palin adds some bubbly sweet mystery to it all. It does bring up the moral question: is it a lie if you say it but don't know its a lie? I think that is the case with Sarah. She can be (and not act) so sincere because she is just puking out what handlers have fed her. I don't think she knows she's lying. Does that make it OK? Or worse -- that she is so uninformed she can't distinguish a cooked-up lies from sanity and truth? (But she pukes in such a cute way -- reminds me of some gf's as I held their head over he toilet bowl -- she on her knees. Very endearing and cute. Except when she hit my shoes. ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: [snip] I was talking to a friend today about debates and I mentioned the gaffe of Biden saying FDR on TV in 1929 (yes I was defending media treatment of Palin Shemp, as I often do --- up to a point.) My friend pointed out that FD Roosevelt was Governer of New York in 1929, and I found out that New York city did have regular TV broadcasting from 1928 on, and it is HIGHLY LIKELY that in the city where the stock exchange crashed that the Governere would go on radio and TV to make speeches about it. Sounds like Coulter is talking through her ass again, and Shemp is swallowing it hook line a sinker. Looks like Biden was right. OffWorld Yes, it's correct that there were regular broadcasts of what could pass as television in New York from 1928 on but only in the most limited sense of both words. They were one-inch screens and the whole enterprise was of an experimental nature. And the broadcasts were local, not state-wide. There is no evidence nor any documentation that FDR made any TV broadcasts (or radio broadcasts for that matter) in 1928 or 1929. However, an early kinetoscope of one of FDR's TV broadcasts has been making the rounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR3ilZAWHw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Sarah Pants on Fire
. There were more. * ...as a test of clear thinking, the debate format was far less demanding than a face-to-face interview the kind Ms. Palin had with Katie Couric of CBS. Why? Because in a one-on-one conversation, you can't launch into a prepared speech on a topic unrelated to the question. Imagine this exchange based on the first question that the moderator, Gwen Ifill, gave Ms. Palin and Senator Joe Biden if it took place in casual conversation over coffee: LISA How about that bailout? Was this Washington at its best or at its worst? MICHAEL You know, I think a good barometer here, as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America's economy, is go to a kid's soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, How are you feeling about the economy? Lisa would flee. (This was, in fact, Ms. Palin's response.) In a conversation, you have to build your sentence phrase by phrase, monitoring the reaction of your listener, while aiming for relevance to the question. That's what led Ms. Palin into word salad with Ms. Couric. But when the questioner is 30 feet away on the floor and you're on a stage talking to a camera, which can't interrupt or make faces, you can reel off a script without embarrassment. The concerns raised by the Couric interviews that Ms. Palin memorizes talking points rather than grasping issues should not be allayed by her performance in the forgiving format of a debate. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04pinker.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Sarah Pants on Fire
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: According to factcheck.org, both Biden and Palin are guilty of getting their facts wrong in the debate. Those fact-checks comparing Biden to Palin in the debate, are more like comparing the gravitous weight of the Obama mistake that he had been married 16 years, not 15, compared to McCain's consitent lies about his own voting record, and stinging character assinations of Obama. They are of whole a different order of fact discrepancy OffWorld Then you need to compare Obama's record/stance on issues BEFORE he secured the nomination with his record/stance AFTER he secured the nomination. Obama's nose will be, oh, about 6 times longer than McCain's. And, please note, I am NO fan of McCain's and I feel very uncomfortable painting him in a good light as a result of these comparisons with Barky. They are both bums. I think we can agree, off-kilter, that the bailout is a horrible thing. Yet both McCain and Obama are for it. The difference is that Obama was much more eager for this government intervention than McCain was. As such, on this issue, Obama was MUCH MORE in line with Bush than McCain was. So who's more representative of Bush's third term? Here's their full fact check on the debate: http://tinyurl.com/4fpela http://tinyurl.com/4fpela --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , new.morning no_reply@ wrote: But whats Truth got to do with it? Sarah Palin set a new standard Thursday night. I was in awe. Speaking right into the camera, smiling, winking, and gosh darn it blatently lying to the American people and world. With her skills she could easily be a corporate PR heavy pulling in over a mil a year. Lying skills like that are rare and well- prized. And she is soo much better a liar than Bush. With Bush -- its so clear he is lying. Palin adds some bubbly sweet mystery to it all. It does bring up the moral question: is it a lie if you say it but don't know its a lie? I think that is the case with Sarah. She can be (and not act) so sincere because she is just puking out what handlers have fed her. I don't think she knows she's lying. Does that make it OK? Or worse -- that she is so uninformed she can't distinguish a cooked-up lies from sanity and truth? (But she pukes in such a cute way -- reminds me of some gf's as I held their head over he toilet bowl -- she on her knees. Very endearing and cute. Except when she hit my shoes. ) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com , off_world_beings no_reply@ wrote: [snip] I was talking to a friend today about debates and I mentioned the gaffe of Biden saying FDR on TV in 1929 (yes I was defending media treatment of Palin Shemp, as I often do --- up to a point.) My friend pointed out that FD Roosevelt was Governer of New York in 1929, and I found out that New York city did have regular TV broadcasting from 1928 on, and it is HIGHLY LIKELY that in the city where the stock exchange crashed that the Governere would go on radio and TV to make speeches about it. Sounds like Coulter is talking through her ass again, and Shemp is swallowing it hook line a sinker. Looks like Biden was right. OffWorld Yes, it's correct that there were regular broadcasts of what could pass as television in New York from 1928 on but only in the most limited sense of both words. They were one-inch screens and the whole enterprise was of an experimental nature. And the broadcasts were local, not state-wide. There is no evidence nor any documentation that FDR made any TV broadcasts (or radio broadcasts for that matter) in 1928 or 1929. However, an early kinetoscope of one of FDR's TV broadcasts has been making the rounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR3ilZAWHw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvR3ilZAWHw
[FairfieldLife] Re: Sarah Sarah Pants on Fire
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . There were more. * ...as a test of clear thinking, the debate format was far less demanding than a face-to-face interview the kind Ms. Palin had with Katie Couric of CBS. Why? Because in a one-on-one conversation, you can't launch into a prepared speech on a topic unrelated to the question. Gosh, the KING of prepared only-speak-from-the-teleprompter speakers is Barack Obama and he has NEVER been exposed to the kind of Gotcha! journalism that Palin was exposed to by both Couric and Gibson. Obama was interviewed by O'Reilly who did NOT play Gotcha! journalism with him...but in hindsight he should have. Who else beside O'Reilly did Barack get interviewed with that can be said to be hostile to him? Can you name them? If so, did they give him the kind of What is the speed velocity of a hummingbird's wings questions that Palin got? Anytime Obama is confronted with off-the-cuff questions he hems and haws and stumbles and mumbles TEN TIMES worse than anything Palin has done. But everyone in the media treats him with kid gloves. What a big, fat, fucking baby. Wah-wah-wah. Imagine this exchange based on the first question that the moderator, Gwen Ifill, gave Ms. Palin and Senator Joe Biden if it took place in casual conversation over coffee: LISA How about that bailout? Was this Washington at its best or at its worst? MICHAEL You know, I think a good barometer here, as we try to figure out has this been a good time or a bad time in America's economy, is go to a kid's soccer game on Saturday, and turn to any parent there on the sideline and ask them, How are you feeling about the economy? Lisa would flee. (This was, in fact, Ms. Palin's response.) In a conversation, you have to build your sentence phrase by phrase, monitoring the reaction of your listener, while aiming for relevance to the question. That's what led Ms. Palin into word salad with Ms. Couric. But when the questioner is 30 feet away on the floor and you're on a stage talking to a camera, which can't interrupt or make faces, you can reel off a script without embarrassment. The concerns raised by the Couric interviews that Ms. Palin memorizes talking points rather than grasping issues should not be allayed by her performance in the forgiving format of a debate. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04pinker.html
