Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Chess Game (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2075)

Ocean 09-01-2008 10:43 PM

Re: An interesting article on Teenpregnancygate and Palin issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 89303)
"I have spoken." But it doesn't pack nearly the same idiomatic punch as "he dicho" in Spanish. It's a tough one to translate well.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

What about "Thus Spoke Ocean..."? Not very original, and too pompous, but does it capture the meaning? :)

Simon Willard 09-01-2008 11:34 PM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Just to pile on: Obama is right to touch only lightly on the civil rights struggle. Americans generally don't want to elect a president to make some historic point. Obama's genius is in playing this game straight, i.e., he strives to be the best leader he can be, and he wants to represent all of America.

So I reject the Cohen complaint.

I am already saturated with discussion of race. I have already suffered through self-righteous news anchors speaking of witnessing Obama's "Historic March to the White House". Only if Obama continues to short-circuit the race discussion will he be elected president.

John M 09-01-2008 11:37 PM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Dear My Commie Friend Wonderment,

Suzy Palin is not an irresponsible choice. She is ready on Day One.

If something like a embolism or an Al Qaeda bullet hits my brain, or if my Alzheimer's acts up, Suzy can step in at 3 a.m., open the nuclear football and get on the Red Phone with the Russkies.

As Bheads viewers know, I had a short list for VP which included my friend and fellow POW, Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Guantánamo, Cuba; my friend Margaret Thatcher, my friend Dick Cheney, and my friend Ann Coulter.

Here's what happened: I had to cross out Cheney and Coulter, because they are soft on Islamofascism.

Then it turned out Maggie and Salim don't have Green Cards. (Damn the naysayers who naysayed Comprehensive Immigration Reform!)

Here's some straight talk: I did not pick Suzy Palin because she's a woman. Just as my opponent B. Hussein Obama is a post-racial candidate, I am a post-genderish candidate. We had a lot of good male, female and intersex candidates, but then we narrowed it down to three babes.

First up on the sugar and spice 'n everything nice side was Vicki Iseman, a trusted friend-without-too-many-benefits I used to cuddle with. But Cindy believes she is possessed by Satan and can't carry Ohio or Michigan.

I also considered Paris Hilton. She's from a Republican family with a pedigree (not the arf-arf kind). She's well-traveled. She's a CEO of her own company. She's clean and sober and believes in a higher power. And everyone has already seen her sex tapes, so there'd be no surprises. Plus, the sex tapes prove she's not lesbo. We formally vetted Paris; the only problem is she's single.

That's why I finally went with Suzy Palin. One word: Focus on the family. Who doesn't love fertility? You know that old saying, "As American as mom and apple pie"? I'm the apple pie; Suzy's the mom. It's a winning ticket, my friends. Trust me.

War is Peace (strange but true),
John

Eastwest 09-01-2008 11:39 PM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 89306)
Uh, because it's irresponsible and betrays a total disregard for the welfare of the country?

Typical Left-Wing sniping. Why do you guys always get so hung up on technicalities?

EW

Ocean 09-01-2008 11:47 PM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 89306)
Uh, because it's irresponsible and betrays a total disregard for the welfare of the country?

Some people are not taking your comment very seriously.

Never mind, Wonderment, I do!

Ladran, Sancho, señal de que cabalgamos!

Eastwest 09-01-2008 11:50 PM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by glh17 (Post 89278)
Palin excites the religious right, solidifies the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter crowd, and assures a McCain victory in the South. She believes global warming is a hoax, thinks creationism should be taught as science, looks good, takes out her on meat, and is life-time NRA. Perfect candidate.

Not to mention: As long as McCain / Palin can keep the country obsessing on motherhood, abortion, and the clueless Left, then that's time NOT focusing on the realities otherwise bound to kill the Republicans in November, i.e. the economy, the war on the middle class, military adventurism, torture, spying on US citizens, savage healthcare policy, trashing of US moral prestige throughout the world, etc.

EW

Eastwest 09-01-2008 11:53 PM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 89311)
Some people are not taking your comment very seriously.

And some people don't know "tongue-in-cheek" when they read it.

EW

Ocean 09-01-2008 11:56 PM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest (Post 89313)
And some people don't know "tongue-in-cheek" when they read it.

EW

Are you sure?

Eastwest 09-02-2008 12:01 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 89314)
Are you sure?

Well, now I'm confused. I just couldn't imagine how anyone wouldn't be slapped into wakefulness on the most important issue as brought up by Wonderments summation (except for sophistry-wielding Right-Wing robots).

And then there's the minor problem of my not being able to read Spanish.

EW

PS: Just tried Babelfish, and this is the best I could get:

"They bark, Sancho, signal that we rode!"

(Must be Left-Wing code from collaborators with the Mexicans trying to take back California.)

Ocean 09-02-2008 12:11 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest (Post 89315)
Well, now I'm confused. I just couldn't imagine how anyone wouldn't be slapped into wakefulness on the most important issue as brought up by Wonderments summation (except for sophistry-wielding Right-Wing robots).

And then there's the minor problem of my not being able to read Spanish.

EW

There are two posts in response to Wonderment's, yours and JohnM's. I didn't take any of the two as "serious". And mine wasn't either, I just followed the lead. Those smilies come in handy, if it wasn't that they take away some of the effect. One wishes that the reader reads it twice before realizing.

The quote in Spanish is from Don Quixote. I have no idea how it was translated into English, but it refers to Don Quixote telling Sancho: They bark, Sancho, that's a signal that we are riding (horses). I'm sure there's a better way of translating that to keep the art and the meaning. I just don't know the best translation. I know the text in its original (or quasi) language.

Settled?

Eastwest 09-02-2008 12:15 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 89316)
There are two posts in response to Wonderment's, yours and JohnM's. I didn't take any of the two as "serious". And mine wasn't either, I just followed the lead. Those smilies come in handy, if it wasn't that they take away some of the effect. One wishes that the reader reads it twice before realizing.

The quote in Spanish is from Don Quixote. I have no idea how it was translated into English, but it refers to Don Quixote telling Sancho: They bark, Sancho, that's a signal that we are riding (horses). I'm sure there's a better way of translating that to keep the art and the meaning. I just don't know the best translation. I know the text in its original (or quasi) language.

Settled?


Still doesn't address my allegation that this was really Left-Wing code from collaborators with the Mexicans trying to take back California.

But, yeah, settled, more-or-less.

EW

Ocean 09-02-2008 12:18 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest (Post 89317)
Still doesn't address my allegation that this was really Left-Wing code from collaborators with the Mexicans trying to take back California.

But, yeah, settled, more-or-less.

EW

Why California only? :)

Eastwest 09-02-2008 12:25 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 89318)
Why California only? :)

That's only for starters. Slippery-Slope-Theory (hereafter SST) has it they won't be happy till they get both Canada and Alaska. (Surely, now, you see yet another rationale for the Palin pick.)

EW

Anyway, I've got to go back to editing now. Cheers.

Tom Wittmann 09-02-2008 12:42 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Thank God these guys aren't Obama aides. They would lose this election soooo fast.

Not that they are wrong. Creationists and Rev. Wright have more in common than most see, but that is the point; most don't see it.

Regarding Sarah Palin pleading ignorance about Iraq, I suspect Joshua and Glenn underestimate her when they presume she was giving an honest opinion.

Considering the unpopular fiasco the Iraq War has become, canny local Republican pols give vague answers much like Palin's. They try to maintain distance from Bush's Iraq policy without openly breaking with the Administration. This is very neatly done by pleading ignorance. There is no reason to believe Palin has no developed opinion on Iraq. I would guess she has an opinion that she doen't want to share on the record.

Remember when Clarence Thomas claimed that he had never thought about Roe v. Wade?

Happy Hominid 09-02-2008 12:45 AM

One great diavlog
 
Perhaps my favorite. Glenn and Joshua are great together. This one just kept getting better and better.

Glenn's passion about torture was good to see. It's not talked about enough. Seriously - WE torture people? Really? America...

I strongly recommend the article at Boston Review that Josh mentioned (by Elaine Scarry - link is up there). It's long but riveting and thorough. The case is clear. Bush/Cheney must be put on trial, even if Congress was too weak to do it.

Unit 09-02-2008 01:09 AM

Social constructivism
 
This is the passage I'm referring to.

Bobby G 09-02-2008 03:41 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Well, if she's as big a disaster as you say, she may sink the campaign. If she doesn't sink the campaign, it may very well because she's ready to step up. The only worrisome possibility is that it's true both that (a) she's a disaster and (b) McCain wins. I think the chances of (a) and (b) being true are pretty slight.

Before judging her to be a disaster for the country, I think we have to wait to see how she handles herself.

John M 09-02-2008 04:34 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Hello My Georgian Friend Chiquita Banana,

As my chief Bheads gender advisor, I have a quick question for you.

Are there any age or gender requirements for my cabinet?

I am thinking that Bristol Palin will be 18 by Inauguration Day. The pregnancy thing will be over. Could I name her as head of the Environmental Protection Agency?

She only got a D+ in chemistry (and obviously an F in physiology), but I can get her a tutor. Her mom says she won the Book of Revelations spelling bee at Bible Camp when she was 11, so she's a pretty smart cookie.

Attorney General for Bristol would make a bigger splash in the media, but you probably a college degree for that.

(Note to self: Find out if Al Gonzalez went to college. Check with Cheney.)

War is peace,
John (Giovani)

Xelgaex 09-02-2008 05:25 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wovenstrap (Post 89298)
Oh, Glenn, you are brilliant but you still chide the Dems for rejecting the "experience" of a woman whose primary job for nearly twenty years was "political wife" and who repeatedly tried to pass off being First Lady as a job with serious organizational, political/policy duties. Which it does not possess. It might be churlish to point out that the Democratic voters opted for the candidate who had been running on his own record for an extra four years, but it's the case. The flaw of Hillary's candidacy was staking everything on some imagined quantity of "experience" that was at best 50% as large as Hillary wanted to claim.

That slightly mystifies me as well. If experience was really important to voters (at least in the Democratic primary) wouldn't we have Joe Biden as the Pres. nominee instead of VP?

semaj83 09-02-2008 05:45 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Both of these men are very intelligent and honest, and had a respectful debate, which I appreciate. I want to make one point in regard to the specific debate about the candidate's individual motives for vp selection.

How can we know McCain or Obama's internal motives for this decision, or any decision? Were they honorable or dishonorable? Are phrases like "for the good of the country" and "to win an election" mutually exclusive terms? Can we imagine a situation where a candidate would pick a running mate who was not qualified just to win an election, because in their mind the alternative if they lost would be worse than to win with the person they chose? I think it's complicated to talk ethically about these decisions but not frivolous. Ethics are at the heart of this election, a vote in itself I would argue is a choice of right or wrong.

To finish I purpose that we cannot know their motives except by what they say, and then we must follow with another question, "Do we believe them?"

nikkibong 09-02-2008 06:08 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Josh Cohen puts the HEADS in bloggingheads.tv

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/140...7:55&out=08:00

SkepticDoc 09-02-2008 06:25 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastwest (Post 89315)
Well, now I'm confused. I just couldn't imagine how anyone wouldn't be slapped into wakefulness on the most important issue as brought up by Wonderments summation (except for sophistry-wielding Right-Wing robots).

And then there's the minor problem of my not being able to read Spanish.

EW

PS: Just tried Babelfish, and this is the best I could get:

"They bark, Sancho, signal that we rode!"

(Must be Left-Wing code from collaborators with the Mexicans trying to take back California.)

try "Don Quijote"

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 06:32 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 89287)
We, the liberals, in all our rationality, call the above conservative whining.

Instead of complaining, wouldn't it make more sense to expose your arguments?

If you want to engage others in dialog, you will have to state your opinion. If you don't, the rest of us will continue to say what we think. Don't complain about that.

Yowsa!

Spot on.

Sounds like KingFish really just wants the hear a diavlogger who will reinforce his views, as opposed to having any interest in standing up for them himself.

Namazu 09-02-2008 06:39 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyle (Post 89238)
Glenn Loury is brilliant.

So brilliant that he makes the same argument I've been making to friends the last few days. But the choice of Palin is a jujitsu two-fer: as Glenn points out, it draws the Obama campaign into an ill-advised resume comparison, but it will also elicit from the press and the left even more vile sexist rhetoric than Hillary faced--leading to fiercer backlash. The Republicans are simply better at this game.

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 06:53 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jcohen57 (Post 89248)
on Kerry, I was not listening to the numbnuts commentary. I just could not bring myself to listen to Kerry, even after I heard he was really good. Still, point taken: a bad oversight.

YouTube means never having to say you're sorry (for having missed it).

I am as much of a cringer when John Kerry speaks as anybody, Josh. Especially in that light, I urge you to watch this.

Head and shoulders above anything I've ever heard him say anywhere else.

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 06:59 AM

Re: Guys, Please watch C-Span from now on
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 89308)
Just to pile on: Obama is right to touch only lightly on the civil rights struggle. [...]

I agree, too. As powerful as Glenn's righteous anger was, and as spot-on as any number of his and Josh's points were (Glenn's one about no TV cameras in the houses of South Side Chicago during Michelle Obama's speech in particular), at some point, you have to come out of the tower of dreams and recognize what it's going to take for Obama to win over suspicious or fearful white voters.

Just getting him elected is going to be a huge step forward. His and his family's presence in the White House alone will contribute to better race relations. And I believe that as Chief Executive, particularly with a Democratic Congress, he'll have plenty of opportunity to address the problems that still exist.

The first step, though, is getting him there, and he'd have a lot tougher time of it if he beat people over the head with historical complaints, as fully justified as they are. 99.999% of people who would respond positively to those messages are already going to vote for him. Too many of those messages, in a nomination acceptance speech, just wouldn't be politically smart.

[Added] And as Ed Fielding reminds me, the same thinking applies to several other regrets that Josh and Glenn voiced. As much as I agree with J&G, political calculations have to be taken into consideration at this point. I, too, would have liked strong statements condemning torture, secret prisons, and all of the other ways we've lost our moral compass. I, too, would have been thrilled to hear a loud and clear commitment to investigate every last bit of the Bush Administration's doings. But again, anyone to whom those points would appeal has long since been won over by Obama. And further, there is no need, this year, to rally the get-out-the-vote effort. Obama's ground game, plus the state of the union, have locked that one up for sure. There just isn't an upside to tossing too much of this kind of red (blue?) meat, when you know that it's not going to be palatable to many of the undecided voters.

I want finally to acknowledge that Glenn and Josh did, at one point or another, admit that they were being a little abstract and ivory tower about a lot of this.

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 07:17 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat (Post 89253)
This is my first time to comment, and I am not sure how to go about it.


Welcome, and you did fine.

Quote:

So let me close with a simple question: if these issues of the limits of science and the status of meaning and other moral categories are not going to be discussed in a science class, Chapter One, just where are they going to be discussed?
Anywhere you might discuss cultural issues. In school, you could discuss creationism in philosophy, history, history of science, literature, or social studies classes. And there are countless places outside of school, too.

Quote:

Teaching the controversy is precisely what is called for. It is an endlessly fascinating subject.
That's a mistake to repeat that talking point. There is no scientific controversy -- evolution is the clear winner as a theoretical structure for understanding biology. So, "teach the controversy" if you insist, but teach it as the real controversy that it is -- a social phenomenon -- and in a more appropriate setting. Teaching creationism in a science classroom is against the fundamental spirit of scientific inquiry, which asks, What can we explain without resorting to the supernatural?

It's also misleading to privilege creationism. Why not also teach, in the science classroom, the geocentric theory as "just as good" as our current model of the solar system and universe? Why not teach phlogiston theory as just as good as thermodynamics? And back to biology, why stop with creationism? Why not also toss in spontaneous generation, Lamarckianism, and the four humours? Where does it end?

It's worth adding in Daniel Dennett's suggestion here, too. He thinks that not only should the Christian creation myths be taught in public school, but all of the other ones, too. Amazingly, there is not a huge outpouring of support from the creationists for teaching this flavor of controversy. What does that tell you?

Xelgaex 09-02-2008 07:28 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
BTW, Nate at 538.com has an interesting post along the same lines of Josh's argument for vice-presidential experience. His argument is that the VP should be ready to succeed to the presidency. As one of the commenters there pointed out this has happened nine times. (Wikipedia has a list on their VP page.)

However I'm leaning towards Glenn's analysis that this is a distraction and that it could be used to question Obama's experience. As this story points out, the campaign surrogates are already doing it.

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 07:36 AM

Re: An interesting article on Teenpregnancygate and Palin issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticDoc (Post 89297)
... I just grew up with both English (2ry) and Spanish (1ry).

What does "ry" mean?

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 07:40 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by glh17 (Post 89278)
Palin excites the religious right, solidifies the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter crowd, and assures a McCain victory in the South. She believes global warming is a hoax, thinks creationism should be taught as science, looks good, takes out her on meat, and is life-time NRA. Perfect candidate.

There are enough prominent conservative commentators who have reacted with dismay that I reject your claim of "perfect candidate" just for that. Forget about winning any votes from the center, center-left, or left, there are large numbers of conservatives who are disenchanted with her.

Since McCain was and is going to lose this election anyway, it's a pity he didn't use this "nothing left to lose" opportunity to take a different sort of bold step: moving the GOP away from its theocratic wing.

That truly would have been Putting Country First (tm).

Ocean 09-02-2008 07:49 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 89339)
Since McCain was and is going to lose this election anyway, it's a pity he didn't use this "nothing left to lose" opportunity to take a different sort of bold step: moving the GOP away from its theocratic wing.

That truly would have been Putting Country First (tm).

It sounds like a last sinister joke from someone who knows this is his last opportunity to run for presidency. That twisted mischievous McC.!

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 07:49 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Wittmann (Post 89320)
Thank God these guys aren't Obama aides. They would lose this election soooo fast.

Boy, did that thought ever cross my mind, too.

Quote:

Regarding Sarah Palin pleading ignorance about Iraq, I suspect Joshua and Glenn underestimate her when they presume she was giving an honest opinion.

Considering the unpopular fiasco the Iraq War has become, canny local Republican pols give vague answers much like Palin's. They try to maintain distance from Bush's Iraq policy without openly breaking with the Administration. This is very neatly done by pleading ignorance. There is no reason to believe Palin has no developed opinion on Iraq. I would guess she has an opinion that she doen't want to share on the record.

Remember when Clarence Thomas claimed that he had never thought about Roe v. Wade?
Excellent thought. I don't know Palin well enough to say whether it applies for her specifically, but it's still a really good point.

SkepticDoc 09-02-2008 07:55 AM

Re: An interesting article on Teenpregnancygate and Palin issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 89337)
What does "ry" mean?

1ry=primary, 2ry=secondary

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 07:56 AM

Re: An interesting article on Teenpregnancygate and Palin issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by SkepticDoc (Post 89342)
primary, secondary

Thanks.

Xelgaex 09-02-2008 07:56 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 89335)
That's a mistake to repeat that talking point. There is no scientific controversy -- evolution is the clear winner as a theoretical structure for understanding biology. So, "teach the controversy" if you insist, but teach it as the real controversy that it is -- a social phenomenon -- and in a more appropriate setting. Teaching creationism in a science classroom is against the fundamental spirit of scientific inquiry, which asks, What can we explain without resorting to the supernatural?

It's also misleading to privilege creationism. Why not also teach, in the science classroom, the geocentric theory as "just as good" as our current model of the solar system and universe? Why not teach phlogiston theory as just as good as thermodynamics? And back to biology, why stop with creationism? Why not also toss in spontaneous generation, Lamarckianism, and the four humours? Where does it end?

Thanks for this post. I had considered responding, but since BH.tv has several users who post quite eloquently on science, I thought someone else would do a better job. And my faith was rewarded. :)

In my high school science classes we actually did learn about spontaneous generation, Lamarckianism, and the four humours, and I wouldn't mind terribly if creationism was taught the same way. Namely, people used to think this, but they were wrong. Of course this might irk the creationists more than just not teaching it at all. (Not that I would mind.) But it might result in less time for learning about good science and actually doing experiments. (Which I would mind.)

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 08:00 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Xelgaex (Post 89344)
Thanks for this post. I had considered responding, but since BH.tv has several users who post quite eloquently on science, I thought someone else would do a better job. And my faith was rewarded. :)

Heh. Thanks.

Quote:

In my high school science classes we actually did learn about spontaneous generation, Lamarckianism, and the four humours, and I wouldn't mind terribly if creationism was taught the same way. Namely, people used to think this, but they were wrong. Of course this might irk the creationists more than just not teaching it at all. (Not that I would mind.) But it might result in less time for learning about good science and actually doing experiments. (Which I would mind.)
In principle, I wouldn't oppose bringing creationism up in a science class in this spirit, as an example of an outmoded theory. But in reality, you know what the result of that would be: wingnuts screaming that they were being discriminated against, that the secular agenda was trying to undermine their children's faith, etc., etc., etc. Given the current political situation, therefore, I think it's better to stick to a stance of just keeping it out of the science classroom altogether.

Ocean 09-02-2008 08:01 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 89341)
Quote:

There is no reason to believe Palin has no developed opinion on Iraq. I would guess she has an opinion that she doen't want to share on the record.
Excellent thought. I don't know Palin well enough to say whether it applies for her specifically, but it's still a really good point.

Are you saying that it's not enough to be a "dumb blonde" brunette, but that she also plays the "dumb blonde"? Confusing...

Xelgaex 09-02-2008 08:10 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 89345)
In principle, I wouldn't oppose bringing creationism up in a science class in this spirit, as an example of an outmoded theory. But in reality, you know what the result of that would be: wingnuts screaming that they were being discriminated against, that the secular agenda was trying to undermine their children's faith, etc., etc., etc. Given the current political situation, therefore, I think it's better to stick to a stance of just keeping it out of the science classroom altogether.

I know what you mean. This is one of the things I love and hate about politics. You can talk all you want about how things should be, but eventually you have to look at what is actually feasible.

bjkeefe 09-02-2008 08:14 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 89346)
Are you saying that it's not enough to be a "dumb blonde" brunette, but that she also plays the "dumb blonde"? Confusing...

If you're asking me, because I said I didn't know her well enough to say whether TW's reasoning applied to her, I can only repeat that I don't know her well enough to say. It could be that she's got a well-formed opinion and is being a canny politician not to state it. It could be that her remarks at face value are the truth, that she has been so focused on her own state's concerns that she hasn't spent any time thinking about foreign policy.

And yes, it could well be that she's just another dumbass politician who got elected by being photogenic and talking the talk that the voters wanted to hear, and has no intellectual curiosity.

Doesn't, in any case, have anything to do with her being a woman. George W. Bush is a perfect example of the third possibility.

Ocean 09-02-2008 08:16 AM

Re: The Chess Game
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 89349)
Doesn't, in any case, have anything to do with her being a woman. George W. Bush is a perfect example of the third possibility.

He's a dumb blonde too!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.