Palin not vetted - TrooperGate - the damning au...

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
It certainly didn't appear that either Reagan or Clinton were intellectual heavyweights (neither brilliant nor stupid) and both turned out to be pretty decent presidents (depending on who you ask, perhaps even great).

Disagree. I think Reagan and Clinton were intensely intellectual and bright. It's pretty well-known that Clinton (I admit I know less about Reagan) was a voracious reader.

From a non-flattering piece:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29549.html - The chaos and paralysis of the Clinton presidency

"Clinton has always been extremely bright, a good student and a voracious reader."

"Clinton's classmate at Yale, William P. Coleman, calls Clinton "the classic quick study."

"Leopoulos told a reporter, "He is interested in everything and wants to consume everything. He is almost a fanatic about information. He gathers and retains it better than anyone I've ever known."

Joel Achenbach of The Washington Post jokes, "That's Clinton: well-versed in every subject, has memorized the leading economic indicators for every quarter since the '20s, knows how to say 'fungibility' in Farsi."


Your point is taken though. Intelligence and intellectualism is no guarantee of performance and I'm not commenting on that portion... just that interesting characteristic about Clinton.

If I'm not mistaken, Reagan highly valued intellectuals around him as well...

Originally posted by treetalk
Whether or not she's dumb has nothing to do with her gender or whether or not she's 'a beautiful woman'.

Unless I missed it, Irontigran didn't tie the two - separate - issues together; you did.

Fine, treetalk, pretend you don't get it. While you're pretending, ponder then... ...what IS the reason? If it's not her participation in the beauty contests (which the left has been incessantly harping on), then what is the reason why all the leftists have decided that she's too dumb to tie her own shoes?

Originally posted by Sickboy
Again, so, hypothetically, if Palin was a man and I said, "this guy" and then followed it up with further insulting statements, you would assume I was denigrating young men? 🙄

I didn't say I didn't insult her as choice for VP. I most certainly did. What I did NOT do was insult her as a choice for VP because she's a woman.

There's no comparison between the terms, "guy" and "girl". A better comparison would be between the terms "boy" and "girl" but even that isn't an accurate comparison because the term "boy" has not typically been used as a pejorative. The term "girl" on the other hand clearly is intended to cast her in the light of just being a silly little girl, in over her head, and having no business playing with the "big boys".

You're willing to let Obama slide as a Presidential candidate, even though his resume is just as thin, or thinner, but you are taking her to task as a Vice-Presidential candidate because she's "just a girl".

Originally posted by Sickboy
Disagree. I think Reagan and Clinton were intensely intellectual and bright. It's pretty well-known that Clinton (I admit I know less about Reagan) was a voracious reader.

From a non-flattering piece:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29549.html - [b]The chaos and paralysis of the Clinton presidency

[i]"Clinton has always been extremely bright, If I'm not mistaken, Reagan highly valued intellectuals around him as well...[/b]

[/i]I tend to disbelieve the disinformation about intelligence and presidents (and candidates). There was all sorts of smack talk from the left about what a genius Kerry was and what a dunce GW was. But when somebody actually compared their school records it turned out the Kerry was the more dimwitted of the two. And don't get me started about Al Gore and how he invented the internet, global warming and God only knows what else. So when I hear now that Clinton has this great big brain, I tend to be a wee bit skeptical--particularly in light of the fact that he plainly did some incredibly stupid things.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
Fine, treetalk, pretend you don't get it. While you're pretending, ponder then... ...what IS the reason? If it's not her participation in the beauty contests (which the left has been incessantly harping on), then what is the reason why all the leftists have decided that she's too dumb to tie her own shoes?

Maybe she is in fact dumb?

And you - as part of the right - have a huge amount of gall harping on about the left bringing up trivialities - that's all your side has done for the last ten years.

Originally posted by treetalk
Maybe she is in fact dumb?

And you - as part of the right - have a huge amount of gall harping on about the left bringing up trivialities - that's all your side has done for the last ten years.

Maybe? So you run around calling her a dumbass, because "maybe" it might actually be true? Come on!

I might also point out that (1) I'm hardly part of "the right" I'm actually all over the political map depending on the issue and I'm planning to vote for Obama even though I can't stand him, because I think McCain's a wacko. And (2) dodging the question by hurling an insult, isn't lending much credibility to your argument. And (3) I wouldn't consider using sexist pejoratives to attack Gov. Palin any more a "triviality" than using racist ones to attack Sen. Obama. Perhaps you should consider... ...where would you'd stand if the right-wingers were attacking your candidate with racist epithets?

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
There's no comparison between the terms, "guy" and "girl". A better comparison would be between the terms "boy" and "girl" but even that isn't an accurate comparison because the term "boy" has not typically been used as a pejorative. The term "girl" on the other hand clearly is intended to cast her in the light of just being a silly little girl, in ...[text shortened]... ng her to task as a Vice-Presidential candidate because she's "just a girl".

LS: the term "boy" has not typically been used as a pejorative


Tell that to your African-American friends.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LS: the term "boy" has not typically been used as a pejorative


Tell that to your African-American friends.

That would be using the terms in an entirely different (and rather racist) way, No1. Unless I'm mistaken though, Gov. Palin isn't African-American and that wasn't what we were talking about.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
That would be using the terms in an entirely different (and rather racist) way, No1. Unless I'm mistaken though, Gov. Palin isn't African-American and that wasn't what we were talking about.

You made a statement that was absolutely incorrect; the term "boy" has certainly been used as a pejorative. Just admit your rather ludicrous error for a change.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
There's no comparison between the terms, "guy" and "girl". A better comparison would be between the terms "boy" and "girl" ....

No comparison between the terms, "guy" and "girl', huh? Let's see. A Google search of "guys and girls" brings these page titles up..


1. 10 Things guys wish girls knew -- From "Girl's Life" magazine (imagine the nerve of those Mysoginists at Home & Garden!!)
2. Rules that Guys Wished Girls New
3. Girls Ask Guys - Two Sides .. All the Answers
4. Why Guys Dump Girls They Dig -- Cosmopolitan.com (Why are women reading a magazine so obviously sexist against women?!?!)
5. Compatibility Quiz for Guys and Girls
6. Slideshow: Hot Guys & Girls of '90210'


Try the experiment yourself. I dare you.

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
[/i]I tend to disbelieve the disinformation about intelligence and presidents (and candidates).

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Eladar
GW was a reference to George W Bush.

thats what i thought at first, and i had a nice zinger to that, but that shouldve been GB, so i removed it.. 🙁

Originally posted by no1marauder
You made a statement that was absolutely incorrect; the term "boy" has certainly been used as a pejorative. Just admit your rather ludicrous error for a change.

Perhaps you should re-read the post you just replied to, No1. I'd say I clearly stated that the term "boy" HAS been used in a racist sense. Duh! HOWEVER, that was not what we were talking about. We were talking about sexism, as I recall.

Since you insist upon drawing the parallel, I'll have to admit that you raise a good point. Lefties denigrating Palin by calling her a "girl" are the sexist equivalent of right wingers denigrating Obama with the racist term "boy". If the latter were happening you would be calling for their heads. Why the double standard?

Originally posted by leisurelysloth
A quantum leap in logic? Really? This is the second time that Irontigran has claimed that she's too dumb to be VP. And he's certainly not the first to suggest that. And based upon what? Nobody's heard anything from her yet. Why are all the lefties assuming she's a dumb ass? Is it just that lefties assume all conservatives are stupid? Or is it ...[text shortened]... turned out to be pretty decent presidents (depending on who you ask, perhaps even great).

I can't believe you say Carter was worse than the latest Bush! He singlehandely got the price of oil and gas up to 4 bucks a gallon.
Do you seriously think the Iraq war was about Saddam? Why do you think he didn't go into Afghan in real force to find Bin Laden but instead attacks Iraq, and Saddam was supplied by the US all along. I don't see Carter doing anything fatal like that. The thing that pizzed me off about Carter was killing the space station and keeping the shuttle.
It should have been the other way round. The shuttle is a boondoggle.
The crimes of Bush Vs the crimes of Carter are not even in the same league.

Originally posted by Sickboy
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/
The Palin family had a feud with Wooten prior to her becoming governor. They put together a list of 14 accusations which they took to the state police to investigate -- a list that ranged from the quite serious to the truly absurd. .... suspension ... The Palin's weren't satisfied but there wasn't much they could do."
... ...[text shortened]... nt/story/510080.html


McCain, you failed your first Command-in-Chief test.

Well, at least she didn't kill poor Vince Foster or any of those people in Arkansas:

http://www.lizmichael.com/clintond.htm