Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
144 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Proof Sarah Palin is an uneducated idiot rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Rob M.
United States
College Park,
Maryland
flag msg tools
Its Peanut Butter Jelly Time!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In responding to questions Sarah Palin has shown she doesn't know the difference between "vagaries' and 'vagrancies'. Or "eminent" and "imminent."Or "providence" and "province." Or "story of knowledge" instead of "store of knowledge".

Ooops, did I write "Sarah Palin". I meant to write "Sonya Sotomayor", Obama's nominee to the highest court in the land. I don't honestly believe that Ms. Sotomayor is ignorant, they could be simple slips made during extemporaneous responses. I do know that when Ms. Palin makes similar slips they are often pointed out as proof of ignorance.


Audio of the errors
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/audio_of...

Reported by

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/if_sarah... & http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2JiMWI3NDJlMDEwZTA0... & My third most favorite Canadian Blogger http://www.fivefeetoffury.com/



2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Be careful. Uneducated is pretty similar to ignorant, and you don't want to go down that road, calling her an ign...
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
One of the Original Twelve
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Considering Palin was up for the back up to the entire Executive branch of government and Sotomayor is up for 1/9 of the Judicial; I'll give her that much leeway.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DarthXaos wrote:
joebelanger wrote:
Considering Palin was up for the back up to the entire Executive branch of government and Sotomayor is up for 1/9 of the Judicial; I'll give her that much leeway.


1/9 of the Judicial has much more power than the executive branch, considering they get to decide what the Constitution "means" (irregardless of what it actually says), and there is no check on their power.

Theoretically, if the Court wanted to, they could make a ruling that was completely opposite to what the Constitution actually says, say "well that's what it really MEANS" and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

I disagree that one Justice is more powerful than the Executive, but I do believe that one Justice is more powerful than the VP, especially with all these 5/4 decisions.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Magic Pink
United States
Minneapolis
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I don't consider vocab screw-ups as proof of ignorance. They may be funny, sure, but that's as far as I go.

Bait-and-switch posts to prove political party superiority, tho, those are straight up fucking stupid.
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joebelanger wrote:
Considering Palin was up for the back up to the entire Executive branch of government and Sotomayor is up for 1/9 of the Judicial; I'll give her that much leeway.


You know you could be against ignorance in any of the branches?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan C
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
DarthXaos wrote:
1/9 of the Judicial has much more power than the executive branch, considering they get to decide what the Constitution "means" (irregardless of what it actually says), and there is no check on their power.

Theoretically, if the Court wanted to, they could make a ruling that was completely opposite to what the Constitution actually says, say "well that's what it really MEANS" and there's nothing anyone can do about it.


Given the ease with which the previous administration ignored the constitution, I find the judicial branch's ability to interpret it irrelevant.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Magic Pink wrote:
I don't consider vocab screw-ups as proof of ignorance.


I agree, but many seem to take it as evidence. Look how often Bushisms were repeated as an example.
5 
 Thumb up
0.02
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
One of the Original Twelve
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
joebelanger wrote:
Considering Palin was up for the back up to the entire Executive branch of government and Sotomayor is up for 1/9 of the Judicial; I'll give her that much leeway.


You know you could be against ignorance in any of the branches?


Thinking you can eliminate ignorance from government is pretty ignorant.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gutrender wrote:
In responding to questions Sarah Palin has shown she doesn't know the difference between "vagaries' and 'vagrancies'. Or "eminent" and "imminent."Or "providence" and "province." Or "story of knowledge" instead of "store of knowledge".


Did you really listen to an hour of audio to find four slips of the tongue and post them here?

How can you really tell whether she said "eminent" or "imminent"? Don't they sound pretty similar?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joebelanger wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
joebelanger wrote:
Considering Palin was up for the back up to the entire Executive branch of government and Sotomayor is up for 1/9 of the Judicial; I'll give her that much leeway.


You know you could be against ignorance in any of the branches?


Thinking you can eliminate ignorance from government is pretty ignorant.


Apathy is better?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott A. Reed
United States
Lawrence
Kansas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mb
Quote:
irregardless


Intentional? In a thread about getting the words wrong?
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Magic Pink wrote:
I don't consider vocab screw-ups as proof of ignorance.


I agree, but many seem to take it as evidence. Look how often Bushisms were repeated as an example.


And some of them weren't even his!

"Strategery"

"Nucular" (first used by Eisenhower, followed by Mondale, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Palin, among others).

Okay, two of them weren't his.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
skelebone wrote:
Quote:
irregardless


Intentional? In a thread about getting the words wrong?


Actually, what really kills me about the use of this word is that because it has been used so frequently and has become part of the US English vernacular, it is now accepted (albeit "nonstandard") in the Webster's dictionary.

Bad enough that "ain't" gets recognition - we don't need this misuse added too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
One of the Original Twelve
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dispaminite wrote:
joebelanger wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
joebelanger wrote:
Considering Palin was up for the back up to the entire Executive branch of government and Sotomayor is up for 1/9 of the Judicial; I'll give her that much leeway.


You know you could be against ignorance in any of the branches?


Thinking you can eliminate ignorance from government is pretty ignorant.


Apathy is better?


Wit is better. You should try using it more than half of the time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So does this mean we can expect Sotomayor to quit a couple of years after being approved?

-MMM
9 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
I see you...
United States
Avon
Ohio
flag msg tools
"I made a promise on the grave of my parents...
badge
...that I would rid this city of the evil that took their lives. "
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
joebelanger wrote:
Dispaminite wrote:
joebelanger wrote:
qzhdad wrote:
joebelanger wrote:
Considering Palin was up for the back up to the entire Executive branch of government and Sotomayor is up for 1/9 of the Judicial; I'll give her that much leeway.


You know you could be against ignorance in any of the branches?


Thinking you can eliminate ignorance from government is pretty ignorant.


Apathy is better?


Wit is better. You should try using it more than half of the time.


Wit is like Irony. I'm not good at it, and given up on even trying to understand it.
1 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob M.
United States
College Park,
Maryland
flag msg tools
Its Peanut Butter Jelly Time!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Magic Pink wrote:
I don't consider vocab screw-ups as proof of ignorance. They may be funny, sure, but that's as far as I go.

Bait-and-switch posts to prove political party superiority, tho, those are straight up fucking stupid.

Nor do I considered vocab screw-ups as proof of ignorance. My post does not suggest or attempt to prove that either party is superior, it points out the double standard of the media.


TopperHarley wrote:
Given the ease with which the previous administration ignored the constitution, I find the judicial branch's ability to interpret it irrelevant.

The Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration's positions on a large number of issues including: 1) Warrantless wiretapping, 2) Torture (they continue to defend John Yoo's torture memo in court), 3) Indeffinite detention, and 4) Executive Privilege (withholding documents from Congress related to AmeriCorp Inspector General Gerald Walpin's firing). Seems odd that the abuses of the previous administration are still on your mind yet the abuses of the current administration warrant nary a mention.


DarthXaos wrote:
1/9 of the Judicial has much more power than the executive branch, considering they get to decide what the Constitution "means" (irregardless of what it actually says), and there is no check on their power.

Theoretically, if the Court wanted to, they could make a ruling that was completely opposite to what the Constitution actually says, say "well that's what it really MEANS" and there's nothing anyone can do about it.


For example the Second Amendment which reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" .
The Supremes then rule that McCain-Feingold is constitutional and end up with a case where some 90 minute movie may be censored because it contains political content and is released too soon to an election? Naaahh, that could never happen, you are just paranoid.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gutrender wrote:
For example the Second Amendment which reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" .


That is number two? Is there a number one that the rest of us never heard of?

Are you really as absolutist as you sound? You're against libel laws, for example? The press can print anything? That's not what the people who wrote the Constitution thought it meant.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan C
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Gutrender wrote:
The Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration's positions on a large number of issues including: 1) Warrantless wiretapping, 2) Torture (they continue to defend John Yoo's torture memo in court), 3) Indeffinite detention, and 4) Executive Privilege (withholding documents from Congress related to AmeriCorp Inspector General Gerald Walpin's firing). Seems odd that the abuses of the previous administration are still on your mind yet the abuses of the current administration warrant nary a mention.


I mentioned the previous administration because they set the precedent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Seguin
United States
Cleveland
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TopperHarley wrote:
Gutrender wrote:
The Obama administration has adopted the Bush administration's positions on a large number of issues including: 1) Warrantless wiretapping, 2) Torture (they continue to defend John Yoo's torture memo in court), 3) Indeffinite detention, and 4) Executive Privilege (withholding documents from Congress related to AmeriCorp Inspector General Gerald Walpin's firing). Seems odd that the abuses of the previous administration are still on your mind yet the abuses of the current administration warrant nary a mention.


I mentioned the previous administration because they set the precedent.


No they didn't. The precedent was set well before Bush showed up on Pennsylvania Ave.

Clinton was using warantless wiretapping, too. So was Reagan and Carter. If I am not mistaken, warantless wiretapping goes back to the early 70's. And Executive Privilege of withholding documents from Congress goes back farther than FDR. Indefinite detention was a practice engaged in by the one man that the liberals consider the greatest president in our history - FDR - need I remind you of the detainment of thousands of US Citizens of Japanese decent during the 40's, or do all liberals conveniently forget that part of "precedent" when Bush decided to detain non-US, non-soldier foreign enemies in Cuba?

Try again...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rob M.
United States
College Park,
Maryland
flag msg tools
Its Peanut Butter Jelly Time!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaviddesJ wrote:
Gutrender wrote:
For example the Second Amendment which reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" .


That is number two? Is there a number one that the rest of us never heard of?

Are you really as absolutist as you sound? You're against libel laws, for example? The press can print anything? That's not what the people who wrote the Constitution thought it meant.


Ooops, I started planning to mention the Fifth Amendment and the Kelo decision and then thought I'd mention the Second and the Heller case and decided just to do the first amendment.

Might be a bit tough to determine how absolutist I am from a single paragraph primarilly comprised of a quote of the amendment. I am OK with the existence of libel laws, restrictions on child porn and shouting "Fire". I also accept that free speech means that people can burn the flag, any flag. But more than any other form of expression political speech must absolutely be unrestricted.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mystery McMysteryface
United States
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
Magic Pink wrote:
I don't consider vocab screw-ups as proof of ignorance.


I agree, but many seem to take it as evidence. Look how often Bushisms were repeated as an example.


I would add public speaking prowess in general........


Sotomayor's vocab mistakes could be language-related and not ignorance.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan C
United States
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
chrisnd wrote:
No they didn't. The precedent was set well before Bush showed up on Pennsylvania Ave.

Clinton was using warantless wiretapping, too. So was Reagan and Carter. If I am not mistaken, warantless wiretapping goes back to the early 70's. And Executive Privilege of withholding documents from Congress goes back farther than FDR. Indefinite detention was a practice engaged in by the one man that the liberals consider the greatest president in our history - FDR - need I remind you of the detainment of thousands of US Citizens of Japanese decent during the 40's, or do all liberals conveniently forget that part of "precedent" when Bush decided to detain non-US, non-soldier foreign enemies in Cuba?

Try again...


If you want to get in a constitutional pissing contest we can go all the way back to Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus in 1861 or John Adams midnight appointments. Constitutional abuse has been around since the inception of the Constitution. The policies I responded to (woo's torture memo, withholding documents from Congress related to AmeriCorp Inspector General Gerald Walpin's firing, etc) were new Bush administration policies. There are historical precedents, but Bush & co. really pushed the envelope.

And before you continue with your conservative indignation, I'm not some FDR loving liberal. The Obama administration is just as guilty for continuing these policies and the only reason the Clinton administration wasn't as evil as Bush 43 is because they didn't have the imagination.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gutrender wrote:
Might be a bit tough to determine how absolutist I am from a single paragraph primarilly comprised of a quote of the amendment. I am OK with the existence of libel laws, restrictions on child porn and shouting "Fire". I also accept that free speech means that people can burn the flag, any flag. But more than any other form of expression political speech must absolutely be unrestricted.


Do you mean that they must be unrestricted because the Constitution says so, or that they must be unrestricted because it's good policy?

I think the American experience has shown that restrictions on funding political activity are absolutely essential. So the answer to the policy question seems pretty clear to me (and the opposite of your answer). I'm not sure about the former question. It seems to me that restrictions on political funding are different from restrictions on political speech, but I can understand how others can disagree.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [6] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.