McCain concedes race to Obama and congratulates him!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


I think you're being quite unfair to Palin because you don't like her and want to believe anything bad that comes out about her.

I think she has demonstrated herself to be ignorant. I use this to inform my opinion of future stories which come out about her. She's actually one of the more likable political ignoramuses to my mind. She has less self-assurance about issues that she doesn't know about, for example. Personally, I think you're giving her too much credit because you're having trouble believing that the system could throw out a person that horribly uninformed to be a major candidate for VP of the US.

One verbal slip-up is not evidence that Palin doesn't know who's in NAFTA

It is not a single verbal slip-up. She has committed egregious factual errors and an inability to demonstrate factual knowledge multiple times in the few instances she was allowed out of her cage. The NAFTA claim is consistent with her other behaviour. I do not make the claim that it is at all certain that it is true, but it is plausible.

You're applying an inordinately severe standard to Palin's behavior that you (and other reasonable people) don't apply to other public figures.

I'm applying a law of averages. She made an inordinate number of mistakes/demonstrated profound ignorance an inordinate number of times in her relatively short time in the spotlight, with relatively few opportunities to question her.

[-Jrabbit]

Don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. Ignorance is correctable, and this woman is driven. Given the base's love for her, I totally expect her to run in 2012 and 2016.

As of last Friday, 64% of registered GOP voters list Palin as their preference to head the ticket in 2012.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Personally, I think you're giving her too much credit because you're having trouble believing that the system could throw out a person that horribly uninformed to be a major candidate for VP of the US.

I don't think assuming Palin knows the three countries that make up North America until I hear convincing evidence to the contrary is being overly kind to her.

She has committed egregious factual errors and an inability to demonstrate factual knowledge multiple times in the few instances she was allowed out of her cage.

I don't really agree with you on the factual errors. Palin certainly performed badly in her first interviews, but that was more a matter of mangled syntax and nerves than factual inaccuracy. This fact check of her interview with Charlie Gibson certainly didn't turn up any major factual errors. Even her infamous answer about Putin rearing his head and entering the airspace of the U.S. made perfect factual sense if you know anything about Russian aerial probes of Alaskan air space. The answer wasn't factually wrong; it just came out sounding retarded.

At any rate, Palin got much better after a rocky start and most of the reporters who travelled with her seem to disagree with your belief that she possesses no factual knowledge, as do the campaign staff that worked with her. No offense, but I find their views on the matter far more worthy of consideration than yours.

[Aeson]

Re: Aeson

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Your post is long-winded and of marginal interest to me.

It was rather short, relatively speaking. Sorry if your interest is insufficient to continue, but there's no need to inform me of that status. If you were to drop the subject, I would be able to guess easily enough that you are no longer enthralled enough by the discussion to continue. (Though if you were to drop the discussion and disappear from the forums it might be cause for some confusion for me as to why, but in any such case I wouldn't expect a confirmation of your disappearing from the forums from yourself on the forums anyways.)

You throw out words like "bias" and when called on using them in a pejorative sense proceed to define them in such a way that they are indistinguishable from "judgment".

You seem to have misunderstood my point. Judgment can be affected by bias (preconceived notions). They are not the same thing, and I have not suggested that they are. I illustrated how I think you are letting your bias affect your judgment in specific manners.

explicity:

- how you assign preference for sources, by giving unnamed sources precedence over named sources known to have been present when the supposed statements were made

- how you assign preference for your analysis of an indirect (and non-exact) text "quote" in refutation of the analysis of a named source known to have been present for the actual statements.

Both of which I described as "wrong". Feel free to disagree with me about the examples, or the conclusion I came to, but to pretend they don't exist and that I was simply saying "bias" = "judgement" is clearly not the case. I was showing how bias (even understandable bias, or bias based on correct preconceptions) can wrongly affect judgment.

You've chosen to restrict the idea of "evidence" to that permitted in formal courtroom settings.

I have admitted we disagree on the validity of the "evidence". We both agree that it is hearsay. I myself do not rely on hearsay to guide my analysis of situations, especially if as noted previously several times, there is sufficient evidence to come to the same conclusions (eg. Palin unfit for president/VP) using verified facts.

In short... I'm not a gossip. Perhaps you are... gossips seem to love hearsay, unconfirmed reports, unnamed sources, and the dredge they dredge up.

In other words, it is clear that you are in the mood to substitute sophistry and pedantry for original analytic thought.

Not substitute.

"Sophistry" perhaps in one (more ancient) sense, but not the derogatory sense you seem to be presenting it as (though if you wish to clarify please feel free).

"Pendantry" as well in a sense (again, unlikely the sense you offered it in), since the meaning of words used is important in a discussion. But the inclusion of neither has precluded my use of "analytic thought".

Your statements as to my use of "sophistry" and "pendantry" (right or wrong) are of course examples of "sophistry" and "pendantry" as well. As is your decision to only address those aspects that you deemed "pendantry" and "sophistry", ignoring what is obviously analytic to make your claims that I have "substituted" one for the others.

Since it is you who seem to be adverse to "sophistry" and "pendantry", feel free to rejoin when your mood has changed sufficiently as to stomach your own "tactics"

When you decide to change your tactics feel free to let me know.

My "tactics" have and always will include the full scope of what I feel the subject and participants in the discussion merit. Feel free to participate, or not, at your discretion.

[Aeson]

Is there a reference to "North America" being defined as Canada, US, and Mexico (or 3 countries) for her rather than the commonly used geographic term which includes Central America, Greenland, and the Caribbean as well? (Even if such were only used in RISK... that should be enough )

And perhaps that is part of the confusion? If you asked me what countries made up North America, I wouldn't be particularly sure about which set of nations you were referencing. I also doubt I could name all the countries in North America (the more inclusive connotation) off the top of my head without missing any (at least not consistently) since it's not really something I care to keep fresh in my memory. Maps being so easy to check and all...

(And do you include Denmark for Greenland, or just Greenland... or at all?)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is there a reference to "North America" being defined as Canada, US, and Mexico (or 3 countries) for her rather than the commonly used geographic term which includes Central America, Greenland, and the Caribbean as well?

I was wondering that as well. North America IS NOT just Canada, US, and Mexico. South America doesn't start with Belize and the Caribbean.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. Ignorance is correctable, and this woman is driven. Given the base's love for her, I totally expect her to run in 2012 and 2016.

As of last Friday, 64% of registered GOP voters list Palin as their preference to head the ticket in 2012.

It'd be great for the Democratic party if the Republicans choose Palin in 2012.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by MrFun
It'd be great for the Democratic party if the Republicans choose Palin in 2012.

No, it'd be much better for the Democratic party if the GOP wastes any truly viable contender against an unstoppable re-election campaign. Palin, on the other hand, would be expendable cannon-fodder kinda like Dole.

Not only would her 2012 run benefit the GOP by keeping viable contenders in the bullpen, but further her 35%/65% ass-whooping would serve as a stern reminder to Republicans that she represents everything that's wrong with the party (as opposed to the contention of self-destructive idiots on talk radio today that the sole lesson learned from 2008 is to swing further to the right), which would put it on a fast-track toward fundamentally re-inventing its image, also a bad development for the Democrats.

For both reasons, here's hoping she doesn't get the nomination in 2012. Not to assume she'll even be crazy enough to run though.

[Zenn-La]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by MarkG
he is a decent man after all.

he might have got better chances with someone else other than palin...

No. McCain was screwed. The problem was that either he would alienate the GOP base or the independents. There was no way for McCain to get both this election.

Thats not true. Huckabee would have appealed to both. I consider myself a moderate & i am a registered Republican, i absolutely hated Palin but loved Huckabee. I guess McCain had some hard feelings over Huckabee staying in the race when it was clearly over in the primaries so he didn't even consider him. But in reality this was a democrats dream year & no one he picked would have won him this election. Huckabee would have made it closer then Palin did tho.

[Naked Gents Rut]

North America IS NOT just Canada, US, and Mexico.

Yes it is. Central America is Central America, the Caribbean is the Caribbean.

as opposed to the contention of self-destructive idiots on talk radio today that the sole lesson learned from 2008 is to swing further to the right

Why wouldn't that be the lesson? The Dems swung further to the left after 2004 and they just won the last two elections handily.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


Yes it is. Central America is Central America, the Caribbean is the Caribbean.

Seven continents Drake, not nine. Those two regions fall within the North American continent.

Why wouldn't that be the lesson? The Dems swung further to the left after 2004 and they just won the last two elections handily.

The Dems won in 2006 by bringing in a lot of centrist candidates nationwide. The 2006 caucus is further from the left than before, not closer.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Seven continents Drake, not nine. Those two regions fall within the North American continent.

I never claimed to be talking exclusively about continents. The "North American continent" and "North America" have different connotations to most Americans.

The 2006 caucus is further from the left than before, not closer.

The leadership certainly isn't.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


I never claimed to be talking exclusively about continents. The "North American continent" and "North America" have different connotations to most Americans.

Oh, I agree with that, but that still makes Palin appear a fool.

The leadership certainly isn't.

And the Dems aren't the repugs, so the leadership is far less able to force compliance down the line.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Why wouldn't that be the lesson? The Dems swung further to the left after 2004 and they just won the last two elections handily.

A) What GePap said.
B) Obama was a very centrist candidate, notwithstanding the inconsistency with his voting record (note: voters don't give a **** about voting records, even if they educated themselves about them, which they don't).
C) Even if they had swung further to the left, that fact would have only been incidental to a victory already made downright inevitable by several circumstances, not its cause. In any of these races a bag of leaves with a blue "D" painted on it could have won handily in a year like this.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Obama was a very centrist candidate, notwithstanding the inconsistency with his voting record (note: voters don't give a **** about voting records, even if they educated themselves about them, which they don't).

Rhetoric doesn't matter; record does. He's one of the most liberal Dem candidates since Carter.

Even if they had swung further to the left, that fact would have only been incidental to a victory already made downright inevitable by several circumstances, not its cause.

You have no real evidence for this. It fits with your personal bias, but we don't know if it's true or not. A number of commentators on the left disagree with you.