Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Alaska 101 (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2188)

Bloggingheads 10-02-2008 09:42 AM

Alaska 101
 

BeachFrontView 10-02-2008 12:50 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Hello Alaska!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncdoa6ftsR8

bjkeefe 10-02-2008 12:58 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Interesting diavlog. Great to hear from Dave Noon, who I've been enjoying since he started posting on LGM. Nice to hear Jim lay off the partisan cheerleading for the first time in a while, too. A very good interview/conversation.

Dave: one piece of criticism intended as constructive: Don't be so hesitant about talking about things that you don't absolutely know. I could tell many times that you had better answers to Jim's questions about Group X's attitudes or the general view of Politician Y, but didn't want to say because you didn't have hard data. Just say, "As far as I can tell, Group X leans this way" or "Most people think of Mr. Y as a hard core [whatever], although that's more the conventional wisdom than anything based on polling." And don't be afraid to repeat gossip, as long as you identify it as such.

I'm not saying to go whole hog into FriedmanLand, where one cab driver and one lunch with a CEO tells you everything you need to know about, say, India, but you can find a good place, well short of that, to convey a sense of where you live. No one who watches these diavlogs expects perfect, footnoted answers to every single question.

jmoe 10-02-2008 02:48 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
There was an unanswered question on Alaska's bordering Canadian territory, the Yukon. I worked in mineral exploration, mostly in the Yukon but also in Alaska. To answer James' question, there are economic and political similarities in terms of mineral extraction and rural political conservatism. The major difference is that there are about 30,000 people in the Yukon compared to Alaska's 700,000, which makes it hard to compare the two.

Larry Bird 10-02-2008 02:48 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Great idea doing this right next to a highway with a window open. I enjoyed scrambling for the volume to turn it down when Pickerton speaks and then turning it up when Noon speaks. Annoying.

Joel_Cairo 10-02-2008 02:53 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Bird (Post 92846)
Great idea doing this right next to a highway with a window open. I enjoyed scrambling for the volume to turn it down when Pickerton speaks and then turning it up when Noon speaks. Annoying.

Alaska is quite noisy nowadays, what with all the off shore drilling.

Larry Bird 10-02-2008 03:00 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Next time he should do the chat in a less noisy place like a football stadium in the 4th quarter of a playoff game.

Wonderment 10-02-2008 03:01 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Alaska is quite noisy nowadays, what with all the off shore drilling.
And melting.

conncarroll 10-02-2008 04:04 PM

I'm very happy...
 
...that both hilzoy and David Noon are now on record saying that energy export bans are stupid. I love Sarah, but she is dead wrong on this issue.

Oh by the way, do you know who else wants to ban US energy exports from Alaska? Just about the entire House Democratic Caucus. Including Nancy Pelosi. watch:
http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0234
What a bunch of neanderthals!!!

JimS 10-02-2008 04:31 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
A few points as a fellow Juneauite.
Wow, he really doesn't know the town he lives in very well. Southeast Alaska and Juneau border northern British Columbia, not the Yukon. The City of Juneau borders Canada ( though like he said, you have to cross ice fields to get there). It's a bit like someone in Chicago not knowing if Illinois borders Indiana or Michigan.

On federal spending, if you consider the number of personnel employed by the national park service, NOAA, fisheries personnel, military personnel, the coast guard, the BLM and our small population it really distorts the per capita spending numbers.

I disagree that socially conservative Christians are a new phenomena. There have long been pockets of various types of religous groups. Some places like Glenallen have been intensely conservative Christian for decades, and there are a few russian speaking Russian orthodox towns on the Kenai.

Alaska Natives means Indian, eskimo, and Aleut. He didn't explain that very well.

Our dividend checks are silly, the money should all be saved for when the oil runs out, or distributed only to the impoverished.

Palin was able to raise the taxes primarily because the preceding law was written while six legislators were being bribed by VECO, an oil services firm.

The pull tab gambling is done by all kinds of non-profits in Alaska. It is not a Native specific thing.

Native corporate politics are very complex, in part because people look to them for far more than a dividend. People feel the corporations should be providing various social services. They dispense large number of scholarships and do a lot of cultural preservation work, something most tourism companies or logging companies are not spending time on. Many Natives would disagree that the corporate model was not imposed, some areas wanted to opt out but could not. (views based on being married into a Native family for 20+ years)

Good luck on coming on a rain free day, especially this year.

TwinSwords 10-02-2008 06:22 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Larry Bird (Post 92846)
Great idea doing this right next to a highway with a window open. I enjoyed scrambling for the volume to turn it down when Pickerton speaks and then turning it up when Noon speaks. Annoying.

Weird. It just sounded like fairly quiet background noise on my speakers, and was not even slightly annoying. In fact, it created a nice ambiance.

Maybe it sounds different on different speakers.

ogieogie 10-02-2008 06:23 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
seems to me
that to be appetizing
pinkerton needs corn
as much as a cob does

TwinSwords 10-02-2008 06:37 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JimS (Post 92871)
A few points as a fellow Juneauite.
Wow, he really doesn't know the town he lives in very well. Southeast Alaska and Juneau border northern British Columbia, not the Yukon. The City of Juneau borders Canada ( though like he said, you have to cross ice fields to get there). It's a bit like someone in Chicago not knowing if Illinois borders Indiana or Michigan.

Uh, no. It's much more like someone in Michigan not knowing that Michigan borders on Ontario. And you know Americans: We just don't pay any attention to "foreign" countries. Like Canada. And when we do think about our Canadian neighbors, we think of the nearby cities, like Windsor, not provinces, like Ontario. I don't think I've heard one of my Michigan neighbors say "Ontario" in 20 years.

Furthermore, my analogy is too generous, because Ontario is populated. And you can actually get to Ontario from Michigan. Easily. And you might actually have reason to go there from time to time if you live in Michigan. Yukon? British Columbia? Evidently not. And consequently, you're just never going to think about it, except maybe in elementary school when you're learing geography.

Question for you, Jim: By paved road, what's the shortest distance in miles that you can travel between Juneau and and the parts of British Columbia closest to Juneau?

It can't really be 1,295 miles, could it?

If you really have to drive over 1200 miles to get to the part of British Columbia adjacent to Juneau, I think I might understand better than you why people don't spend much time thinking about it.

davenoon 10-02-2008 06:59 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Hey, thanks for the clarifications -- I'm embarrassed about the geography thing, though in my own defense (and as someone downthread suggested) the fact that we can't actually drive out of Juneau partially explains my Palin moment there.

If nothing else, though, I should have recalled the fact that my Canadian friends refer to SE AK as "American Occupied British Columbia."

Larry Bird 10-03-2008 09:31 AM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 92878)
Weird. It just sounded like fairly quiet background noise on my speakers, and was not even slightly annoying. In fact, it created a nice ambiance.

Maybe it sounds different on different speakers.

Uhh yea. I found the ambulance in the backround very soothing.

Whatfur 10-03-2008 09:34 AM

Re: Alaska 101
 
After watching this vlog and the debate I have to conclude that Mr. Noon knows very little about Alaska or its governor. While listening to him I felt his opinion purposefully, contrived.

In any case...everyone here should go to Drudge and put in your Biden vote as it is getting a little embarrassing.

Whatfur 10-03-2008 10:05 AM

Undecided?
 
Here's a few that were.

What was interesting was seeing the above last night and then bouncing to NBC/CBS/ABC and listening to their hosts and guests calling things for Biden. The disconnect is not surprisING ING ing ing g.

AemJeff 10-03-2008 10:45 AM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 92949)
Here's a few that were.

What was interesting was seeing the above last night and then bouncing to NBC/CBS/ABC and listening to their hosts and guests calling things for Biden. The disconnect is not surprisING ING ing ing g.

Good grief Whatfur. Of all of the well publicized focus groups, you picked the most ideologically inclined and the one which produced results that were inconsistent with the rest. Luntz's result may have been honest, (though he was embarrassed by an opposite result a week ago, and Frank knows on which side his bread gets buttered) but it's still an outlier, with at least two other focus group results showing a completely different reaction. That's not an ringing endorsement of the point of view you'd like to highlight.

uncle ebeneezer 10-03-2008 01:03 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
The noise was very loud on my speakers (and I live right near an airport so it takes a lot to make me notice).

Whatfur 10-03-2008 03:57 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
[QUOTE=AemJeff;92951]Good grief Whatfur. Of all of the well publicized focus groups, you picked the most ideologically inclined ...[QUOTE]

So these people were liars then. Liars when they said they voted
50% Bush/50% Kerry and liars when 50% said they would be voting for Obama, and to this point, liars when they said they thought Palin was the
most impressive here. Oh yeah...forgot...you all like your polls about 55/35/10.

Maybe you are right, and the Drudge vote was just more right wing manipulation. Can you provide me with one of the other "well publicized" focus groups so my keel can straighten back up? I wasn't out shopping amongst them nor even looking for one...just happened to see this one. In any case, you seemed to have forgotten to back up your point with anything other than hearsay.

AemJeff 10-03-2008 04:03 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
[QUOTE=Whatfur;92974][QUOTE=AemJeff;92951]Good grief Whatfur. Of all of the well publicized focus groups, you picked the most ideologically inclined ...
Quote:


So these people were liars then. Liars when they said they voted
50% Bush/50% Kerry and liars when 50% said they would be voting for Obama, and to this point, liars when they said they thought Palin was the
most impressive here. Oh yeah...forgot...you all like your polls about 55/35/10.

Maybe you are right, and the Drudge vote was just more right wing manipulation. Can you provide me with one of the other "well publicized" focus groups so my keel can straighten back up? I wasn't out shopping amongst them nor even looking for one...just happened to see this one. In any case, you seemed to have forgotten to back up your point with anything other than hearsay.
You're not responding to what I said, which was, to paraphrase: you picked the one study whose results were consistent with your desired end, and which was conducted by Frank Luntz who is ideologically aligned with you. Whether or npt the results of Luntz's study turn out to representative (and there were at least two other focus groups conducted at the same time whose results didn't agree with this one) - this falls short as an attempt to show the rest of us that your point of view is validated.

And, come on - the Drudge thing doesn't even count as a survey. Pick an ideological website with a poll up on this debate, how many of those toy polls don't come out with a lopsided victory for their own side?

Whatfur 10-03-2008 05:07 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
[QUOTE=AemJeff;92975][QUOTE=Whatfur;92974]
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 92951)
You're not responding to what I said, which was, to paraphrase: you picked the one study whose results were consistent with your desired end, and which was conducted by Frank Luntz who is ideologically aligned with you.
...
And, come on - the Drudge thing doesn't even count as a survey. Pick an ideological website with a poll up on this debate, how many of those toy polls don't come out with a lopsided victory for their own side?

I understood exactly what you said and again...

You discount the participants as liars because of who the moderator was and who the station was.

You cast aspersions that I chose this one over others because it validated my own opinion. There were no others that I came across or looked for, but yeah the one I did validated my own opinion.

You again refer to said "others" without specifics or did I miss that too in "not responding to what you said". If you don't care to validate your opinion or if, for some odd reason, you think its my job to do so well we can let it rest.

And Drudge (70% Palin), you are correct, barely even an unscientific survey. Kind of like..."Who wants gum???""

"I do! I do!" ;)

AemJeff 10-03-2008 05:19 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 92985)
You discount the participants as liars because of who the moderator was and who the station was.

You cast aspersions that I chose this one over others because it validated my own opinion. There were no others that I came across or looked for, but yeah the one I did validated my own opinion.

You again refer to said "others" without specifics or did I miss that too in "not responding to what you said". If you don't care to validate your opinion or if, for some odd reason, you think its my job to do so well we can let it rest.
""

I assumed, because there were a total of three that got lots of publicity, the others would have been obvious. Mea culpa. Ambinder has a good summary.

By the way, I didn't "discount" Luntz' and his group. I implied you were engaging in selection bias, and tried to cast some doubt on the wisdom of depending on his result alone.

TwinSwords 10-03-2008 05:51 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 92949)
Here's a few that were.

What was interesting was seeing the above last night and then bouncing to NBC/CBS/ABC and listening to their hosts and guests calling things for Biden. The disconnect is not surprisING ING ing ing g.

Many of those people had VERY strong opinions -- pro-Palin opinions. They were just jumping out of their seats, dying to defend her good name.

Only you, Whatfur, would believe those were undecided voters. No one goes from undecided to passionate advocate in 90 minutes.

Whatfur 10-03-2008 07:09 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 92989)
Many of those people had VERY strong opinions -- pro-Palin opinions. They were just jumping out of their seats, dying to defend her good name.

Only you, Whatfur, would believe those were undecided voters. No one goes from undecided to passionate advocate in 90 minutes.

No, I think they were passionate in feeling that Palin did a good job (better than JoeJoe), only 3 admitted to solidifying allegiances because of the the debate...one going Obama's way. I think it is you who actually is reading more into what I took from the group... albeit 2 undecided, McCain-leaning, people becoming less undecided(passionate even) because of the debate...I think that is easily in the realm of possiblility.

But yeah...I wonder where they got all these actors...left over from filming moon landings no doubt?

Thanks for the link Jeff...I'll take a peek. I'm not going to find that 55/35 thing I talked about there am I?

Whatfur 10-03-2008 08:47 PM

Tank you very much.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 92986)
I assumed, because there were a total of three that got lots of publicity, the others would have been obvious. Mea culpa. Ambinder has a good summary.

By the way, I didn't "discount" Luntz' and his group. I implied you were engaging in selection bias, and tried to cast some doubt on the wisdom of depending on his result alone.


Ummm...I guess I went there expecting to see some other "Focus Group" results. Is that not what you were originally insinuating?

Instead I get a CNN poll and a CBS poll??? "Good Grief" is right.

AemJeff 10-04-2008 12:53 AM

Re: Tank you very much.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93011)
Ummm...I guess I went there expecting to see some other "Focus Group" results. Is that not what you were originally insinuating?

Instead I get a CNN poll and a CBS poll??? "Good Grief" is right.

Um, I think I've heard them referred to both ways. (I might not have paid enough attention to the terms used. It wouldn't be the first time.) A "poll" that isn't a "focus group " implies a much larger sample (and therefore a higher confidence level) in most cases. What important distinction do you see here?

bjkeefe 10-04-2008 01:49 AM

Re: Tank you very much.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 93018)
Um, I think I've heard them referred to both ways. (I might not have paid enough attention to the terms used. It wouldn't be the first time.) A "poll" that isn't a "focus group " implies a much larger sample (and therefore a higher confidence level) in most cases. What important distinction do you see here?

Oh, let him have his one meaningless data point, Jeff. Think about how silly you'd feel if you found yourself boxed into the corner of defending the fitness of Sarah Palin. That and his echo thing are all he has left at this point oint oint oint.

We now stand by while 'fur says something about back-patting and "queef."

Whatfur 10-04-2008 11:15 AM

Re: Alaska 101
 
I would imagine that a sequestered, face to face, focus group all treated to the same instructions, rules, and debate experience would prove to be a little better yardstick than telephone poll. We might have to get one of the science guys on that. 500,000 or so voted ultimately on Drudge...at what point does that become an acceptable sample.

In any case, its over, they both did seemingly ok. Your press, still dumpster diving in Wasilla and running scared is writing obtuse stories like "Why Women Hate Palin" (Time), while your Larry Flynt films a porn film with a lookalike. At the same time notable left wing writers continue to embarrass themselves (aka. Sullivan) and notable left wing blogs(ThinkProgess), afraid Palin did to well, are throwing things out about Palin knowing what the questions were and using prepared note cards. (Where also before the debate there was a story about checking her for wires)
Yeah, stay classy guys.

Funny at the same time, you know, days after he was given a pass on his grasp of American history, Biden... in what was one of his most emotional, admonishing retorts, seemingly schools Palin on the Constitution. I assume you all knew or know that lawyer, Biden was completely wrong
about that and some dozen or so other utterances he made during the debate. Funny...little of this appears in the MSM. Palin had a couple small misques also but nothing in comparison. One wonders why the MSM went so quickly to the "Nope, no gaffes in this debate No siree cough cough" mantra.

It will be an interesting month.

Ocean 10-04-2008 11:59 AM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93042)
I would imagine that a sequestered, face to face, focus group all treated to the same instructions, rules, and debate experience would prove to be a little better yardstick than telephone poll. We might have to get one of the science guys on that. 500,000 or so voted ultimately on Drudge...at what point does that become an acceptable sample.

The sample size is important, but for this particular purpose, the most important aspect is sample bias. Coming up with a sample that accurately represents the population that will vote in November is key. And unfortunately it's very easy to come up with an intentionally biased sample.

Quote:

In any case, its over, they both did seemingly ok. Your press, still dumpster diving in Wasilla and running scared is writing obtuse stories like "Why Women Hate Palin" (Time), while your Larry Flynt films a porn film with a lookalike. At the same time notable left wing writers continue to embarrass themselves (aka. Sullivan) and notable left wing blogs(ThinkProgess), afraid Palin did to well, are throwing things out about Palin knowing what the questions were and using prepared note cards. (Where also before the debate there was a story about checking her for wires)
I've been reading posts by you and others, and I'm really puzzled by your perception that left wingers are running scared, or that Palin may have done "too well". Who are you trying to fool? Or are you fooling yourself? I don't need to comment on any specific blogger or media articles. Anyone that can think more or less intelligently, can see that Palin is ignorant about the most basic and fundamental facts that pertain to political issues. You may like or dislike her "persona", you may agree or disagree with her political and religious affiliations. All that is arguable. But the fact that, as a political figure, she is dangerously ignorant shouldn't even be questioned. It's obvious beyond challenge.

If Republicans want to support Palin, they'll have to come up with some other convincing arguments. Or continue to do what they do best, deceive those that have no access to information and whose thinking skills have been dampened but years of lies and propaganda.

I respect Republicans who have come out and have honestly denounced Palin's shortcomings. Those Republicans who can think, and still defend the indefensible, I have no respect for. None.

Whatfur 10-04-2008 12:50 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 93043)
The sample size is important, but for this particular purpose, the most important aspect is sample bias. Coming up with a sample that accurately represents the population that will vote in November is key. And unfortunately it's very easy to come up with an intentionally biased sample.

We have agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 93043)
I've been reading posts by you and others, and I'm really puzzled by your perception that left wingers are running scared, or that Palin may have done "too well". Who are you trying to fool? Or are you fooling yourself? I don't need to comment on any specific blogger or media articles. Anyone that can think more or less intelligently, can see that Palin is ignorant about the most basic and fundamental facts that pertain to political issues. You may like or dislike her "persona", you may agree or disagree with her political and religious affiliations. All that is arguable. But the fact that, as a political figure, she is dangerously ignorant shouldn't even be questioned. It's obvious beyond challenge.

First, I've given examples to the running scared with comparisons. There is much more if you want more. For someone who seems intent on letting us know how smart he must be; I am puzzled by your puzzlement.

Second, what fundamental facts? Article I, II? Who was president in 1929?
There is much more if you want to talk ignorance. And dangerously ignorant? You mean like threatening Pakistan? Meeting without condition with Dictators?

"Beyond challenge"?? Now whose fooling who?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 93043)

If Republicans want to support Palin, they'll have to come up with some other convincing arguments. Or continue to do what they do best, deceive those that have no access to information and whose thinking skills have been dampened but years of lies and propaganda.

I respect Republicans who have come out and have honestly denounced Palin's shortcomings. Those Republicans who can think, and still defend the indefensible, I have no respect for. None.

Every candidate has shortcomings. Maybe you can point me to a post of yours where you are pointing out Bidens or Obamas shortcomings ...because unlike you who admittedly zeros on me and those like me
...I see your name on a comment and usually skip past it.

Ocean 10-04-2008 01:28 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Whatfur,

It looks like your appreciation of what's important for a VP candidate to know, and mine are different. If we accept that, we'll save time on a useless discussion. We will not agree on anything that develops from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93046)
For someone who seems intent on letting us know how smart he must be; I am puzzled by your puzzlement.

I'm not sure the above sentence refers to me. If it does, just for the record, substitute he by she. And, again, assuming you're referring to me, I want you to know that I don't write comments to let others know how smart I am. At least, not any more so than any other commenters. I am smart. I'm past the point of needing validation for that. But I'm not infallible and I know that too. I own both my intelligence and my mistakes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93046)
...because unlike you who admittedly zeros on me and those like me

I usually respond to someone's comment when I strongly agree or disagree with the content. I wouldn't define that as "zeroing" on an individual or individuals but addressing their opinions or ideas. I see a difference, but I concede you may not.

Quote:

...I see your name on a comment and usually skip past it.
You're certainly free of doing so. I try to read all posts. I try to understand how other people think. However, sometimes I find comments that are so inflammatory that I regret having read them. I can understand if you have a similar reaction. Spare yourself!

Whatfur 10-04-2008 02:59 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 93048)
It looks like your appreciation of what's important for a VP candidate to know, and mine are different. If we accept that, we'll save time on a useless discussion. We will not agree on anything that develops from there.

Actually Ocean, we probably have a much larger confluence of thought as to what qualifications are necessary in a VP than you think. Where our opinions differ is who has them.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 93048)
I'm not sure the above sentence refers to me. If it does, just for the record, substitute he by she.

Oops sorry...guess that proves my last post, last sentence...and I am glad I held back on calling you a "little girl" for chiming in in pile on mode without adding anything of substance. Oh wait...there was the "Palin is ignorant, so there!!!" Does Spanky now allow girls in the "club"?
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 93048)
And, again, assuming you're referring to me, I want you to know that I don't write comments to let others know how smart I am.
...

I guess you are succeeding then.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 93048)
...
You're certainly free of doing so. I try to read all posts. I try to understand how other people think. However, sometimes I find comments that are so inflammatory that I regret having read them. I can understand if you have a similar reaction. Spare yourself!

We have an understanding.

TwinSwords 10-04-2008 03:43 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93042)
I would imagine that a sequestered, face to face, focus group all treated to the same instructions, rules, and debate experience would prove to be a little better yardstick than telephone poll. We might have to get one of the science guys on that. 500,000 or so voted ultimately on Drudge...at what point does that become an acceptable sample.

You would imagine. LOL. It's a sign of your desperation that you need to dream up these excuses for discounting all of the polls showing results you dislike. First you take a swipe at polls that aren't focus groups, then immediately switch to suggesting that Drudge's poll must be accurate because 500,000 voted in it.

Just to be clear about what you're doing: You're discounting every* scientific poll conducted after the debate, despite the fact that we know scientific polling is accurate, and Drudge's poll is not.

*I say "every" because every scientific poll I saw showed Biden winning decisively. I'll grant I might have missed one that showed Biden winning less decisively, or even tying with Palin. I suppose it is even theoretically possible there's a poll somewhere showing Palin slightly beating Biden, but I really doubt it, and I'd have to see it to believe it.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93042)
In any case, its over, they both did seemingly ok.

I agree: her performance was amazing!

After her hilarious Gibson and Couric performances, I was stunned that she didn't make a massive fool out of herself again. She amazed me, and I think many others, because achieved minimal levels of competence reciting memorized soundbites -- far exceeding expectations!

But did she do "seemingly ok" by any normal standard? Of course not. Only in a world where the bar was set much lower for her than it is for any other politician could her performance be described as passable. But compare her answers directly to Biden's, and you'll she was still all gibberish and talking points, even if she did better than her previous performances.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITY: Re-watch the debate. I was so floored, while watching live, that she could recite memorized answers without making obvious gaffes that I came away with the impression that she did really well. But if you watch the debate again, the initial excitement having passed, I think you'll see it was still largely the same old Sarah: barely distinguishable from Tina Fey.

This is what Palin did: She memorized some 90 second answers to her own questions, and then gave those answers no matter what she was asked. Only by ignoring the moderator's questions and falling back on her prepared answers was she able to give the impression of minimum competence.

The best part? You know all of this is true! http://www.thecentralword.com/forums...milies/lol.gif



Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93042)
Your press, still dumpster diving in Wasilla and running scared is writing obtuse stories like "Why Women Hate Palin" (Time), while your Larry Flynt films a porn film with a lookalike.

ROFL. "My press." "My Larry Flynt."



Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93042)
At the same time notable left wing writers continue to embarrass themselves (aka. Sullivan) and notable left wing blogs(ThinkProgess),

Andrew Sullivan is great. He's a lot more conservative than me, but I really appreciate him and his blog. If people don't already read it, they should start.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93042)
afraid Palin did to well

LOL, you're so wrong. If liberals need to worry about anything, it's being over-confident. Trust me, Whafur: Very few people are afraid Palin did too well. Watch the debate again: she could barely even recite her own memorized answers. Of all the post-debate analysis I read, I thought Atrios said it best:

"I only saw 20 minutes of the debate, and I understand she had better moments than the last 20 minutes, but I think people who are giving her credit for not being horrible are really underestimating the public. You can sell vapid talking points, but only if you deliver them reasonably well. In the 20 minutes I saw, Palin was just a gibberish machine."

I'll admit this wasn't totally obvious to me when I watched the debate live, because I was waiting for a repeat of her Gibson/Couric flame-outs. But once you get past the amazement that she didn't completely screw up, you'll see she didn't do well, either.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93042)
are throwing things out about Palin knowing what the questions were and using prepared note cards. (Where also before the debate there was a story about checking her for wires) Yeah, stay classy guys. Funny at the same time, you know, days after he was given a pass on his grasp of American history, Biden... in what was one of his most emotional, admonishing retorts, seemingly schools Palin on the Constitution. I assume you all knew or know that lawyer, Biden was completely wrong
about that and some dozen or so other utterances he made during the debate. Funny...little of this appears in the MSM.

You can pimp these complaints until election day. No one is listening.

TwinSwords 10-04-2008 03:51 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 92997)
But yeah...I wonder where they got all these actors...left over from filming moon landings no doubt?

I don't know why you come here. Is it to engage in honest debate/disagreement/discussion?

Because if so, you might want to drop this habit of making dishonest assertions. For example, I never said Luntz hired actors. That's your own self-defeating spin.

Likewise, you accussed AEMJeff of saying things he never said. For example, you accussed him of calling Luntz's focus group participants "liars." But he never said that.

I can understand why a dishonest person like yourself might lie to other people about what I or Jeff say, because you might actually fool them. But I honestly don't understand the point of lying to me about what I said, or to Jeff about what he said.

Hey just for fun: What's your opinion of Eric Rudolph?

Whatfur 10-04-2008 04:43 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 93054)
I don't know why you come here. Is it to engage in honest debate/disagreement/discussion?

Because if so, you might want to drop this habit of making dishonest assertions. For example, I never said Luntz hired actors. That's your own self-defeating spin.

Likewise, you accussed AEMJeff of saying things he never said. For example, you accussed him of calling Luntz's focus group participants "liars." But he never said that.

I can understand why a dishonest person like yourself might lie to other people about what I or Jeff say, because you might actually fool them. But I honestly don't understand the point of lying to me about what I said, or to Jeff about what he said.

Hey just for fun: What's your opinion of Eric Rudolph?

Sorry TS, but I am not obliged to go through all your fanciful (or is that fantasy full) retorts except to say that you are a little short in the comprehension department. Add in a bit of sarcasm and you then are obviously completely lost.

In any case, Eric Rudolph...my opinion of him falls real close to my opinion of Bill Ayers. I guess the difference is one is in prison and one should probably be but instead is a contributor to Obama's policy formation. One got a bunch of coverage by the MSM, and the other is approached with the "move along now, nothing to see here" method untilized by the "running scared" MSM which is not surprising as they have chosen that same method with Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, Jim Johnson, Raines, Obama's Fannie Mae contributions etc. etc. etc.

I understand the NYT had 8 fact checkers covering the VP debate and not one came up with the fact that Biden was talking out of his ass when preaching about the Constitution. Hey, TS, maybe they could use a 9th, you have all the qualifications.

TwinSwords 10-04-2008 04:48 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 93061)
Bill Ayers [...] is a contributor to Obama's policy formation.

Care to elaborate? What policy of Obama's does Ayer's contribute to the formation of?

Since you used the present tense, could you also please identify the most recent example of Ayer's contributions to Obama's policy formation?

But by all means: Please don't feel limited to just one example. I'd love to hear you dump everything you've got on this thread: Let's hear it all. Every example you can find of Ayer's contributing to Obama's policy.

TwinSwords 10-04-2008 04:53 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

GOP Strategists Whisper Fears Of Greater Losses in November

With the party already struggling to generate enthusiasm for its brand, Republican strategists fear that an outpouring of public anger generated by Congress's struggle to pass a rescue package for the financial industry may contribute to a disaster at the polls for the GOP in November.
(source)

Whatfur 10-04-2008 05:11 PM

Re: Undecided?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 93062)
Care to elaborate? What policy of Obama's does Ayer's contribute to the formation of?

Since you used the present tense, could you also please identify the most recent example of Ayer's contributions to Obama's policy formation?

But by all means: Please don't feel limited to just one example. I'd love to hear you dump everything you've got on this thread: Let's hear it all. Every example you can find of Ayer's contributing to Obama's policy.

First you need to tell me what you know about Ayers and I will be
happy to fill in the blanks. Let me get you started though...direct from Obama himself... he lives in the same "neighborhood".

Oh wait...I'm sorry... you wanted to talk about Eric Rudolph.

ahhhh... like I never left.

Oh and sorry again...we have gotten off track of this vlog a bit but I guess it was rather dated...but just to lighten the mood I thought I would share one of my favoriate "Alaska" T-shirt sayings based on the fact that men far out-number women there (Ocean you listening?)...

Alaska Men...The odds are good, the goods are odd.

Ocean 10-04-2008 07:43 PM

Re: Alaska 101
 
I thought about whether I should respond to your post or not. I decided to do so just to say: don't waste your time. I'm not going to engage in this kind of interaction. I'm sort of too old for that.

So long, whatfur!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:15 PM.

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