Palin and Paul Revere

Remove all ads!

If you wanted to craft a thread about Obama's politics, and how you dislike them, feel free. That's not a problem. We have debated Obama for the last few years on this board. But a feeble attempt to high-jack a thread about Palin and her ignorance of history to vent your Obama dislike is lame. It's called deflection and some us can see through it.

This is your chance to defend Sarah, or not. But to go on about Obama, race and the South [and I live in the South, so bring it, dude] on this thread is quite frankly, just bad form.

Btw, I asked if you could produce an example of Obama giving a history lesson, much like Palin did, and you gave a list of things you disagreed with. That's just disappointing.

 

It seems to me RG gave you what you asked for ... perhaps you should be a little more clear in exactly what you want from him next time and what you don't believe is fair game in a political discussion.

I guess what RG was doing was simply lost on most -- I thought he did a pretty good parody of the comments on the boards with relevant quotes from President Obama.

 

So the fact that A) he doesn't know how many states there are in the USA & B) that he doesnt know how long ago the constitution was written isn't a direct "obama history lesson"? You obviously have a different definition than I do.

I gave a list as other's had mentioned previous examples of palin misquotes, so i felt like it needed equal time.

The reason I rewrote that sentence as I did is because it is EXACTLY how obama supporters are about him, JUST like Palin's supporters are about her.
He can do no wrong to them just as palin can do no wrong to hers.

As far as you thinking its "bad form", that is your perogative. Do I care? Not one itty bitty little bit.

 

I was clear. The topic is about history. If you want to turn this into a thread about Obama go right ahead, T2.
Be my guest.

Show me. And a little bit of the "Obama ain't black" doesn't go far on a thread about Palin and Paul Revere. Does it?

 

Thats why it was at the very end, it's like a ps & a way to remove the first attack that would have been leveled at me. i.e. "you don't like obama, so you must be a racist!"

 

No, the topic is about making fun of Palin because she's an idiot. A stance I fully agree with. Just because you wanted to turn the topic into a history lesson doesn't mean everyone has to abide by your wishes. Your quotations around "Obama history lesson" seemed to mean you wanted "Obama history" not a history lesson by Obama -- once again, perhaps you should be more clear.

RG already did. He did a great job of showing that Obama (arguably one of the most intelligent politicians in a long time -- which isn't really saying much) can say stupid things as well.

 

The difference should be clear. Do you really feel that Obama believes those things?

Hey, you brought race into this, homeboy. Didn't you? Surprise!

---------- Added 0 hours, 2 minutes and 25 seconds later... ----------

I was clear. Maybe you should work on your reading skills. The topic is history and I was responding to LKD's comment. That you lack the reading skills for that part of it is your problem.

 

You got defensive(& personal) awful fast there chandos the red, do you & t2bruno have history or something?
Why should we not believe that he(obama) believes what he said?

 

Oh, not at all there, southern "gentleman." I'm sure your comments weren't really about Obama and race at all. You were just misquoted.

So, you really believe that he thinks there are 57 states and the Constitution was written 20 centuries ago? Right. Remember Palin had the opportunity to say, "I made an honest mistake." Didn't she? But instead she doubled-down, just like you are doing right now.

Oh, as far as T2 is concerned? It is personal. We don't think much of each other. But that's life.

 

Well he said it & I sure as heck don't remember him ever doing as you say palin should have & admitted "I made an honest mistake", so what we are left with is that he must think what he said was correct.

What is this all about? That question was about you & t2bruno so why the need to get all snippy?

 

Yeah, I was snippy. And I should not have been.

First off. You don't know that. Second, I'm only taking your word that he even made those comments in the first place, because I've never heard them. But, I don't doubt you. But how do you know he didn't retract them? You won't hear it on FOX if he did.

 

Awww. Now my feelings are hurt.

 

I'm sure.

 

Because I am sure that you would have linked to any website that had his retraction to prove that I was mistaken.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxXh6ZWfbDg&feature=related
It's worth a watch.

 

I'll pass. But thanks.

Nope. It's your own credibility that's on the line with that one. Go ahead and insist that you really think that Obama believes those things, unlike Palin who doubled-down with her ignorance of American history:

Ok, let's play this game. First on the real issue in the batch of gaffes:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-says-us-oil-production-last-year-was-/

But let's compare with Palin's:

Let's talk about not being able to "form a sentence:"

I like this one:

Here's more:

Makes me wonder what you have against Obama. Could be in this statement that rubbed me the wrong way:

What are you trying to "prove" with that one regarding race?

 

Eh, as a public figure that's been in the spotlight for several years it's easy to make a few misstatements. It's just as normal that they will be ridiculed by opponents (and occasionally friends) - that's the game you're playing, after all. If you say 57 rather than 47, well, people might just notice and remember .

Now, I haven't bothered keeping a list, but I'd say Palin has a history in that regard that few could match. Some of them are mostly cute, but some might be a bit too elaborate to dismiss as mispronounciation. Bringing up the supposed fanaticism of Obama supporters might be comparing apples and oranges.

In that case, anyway, I think she was using a famous historical case out of context to support a point it has little bearing to (gun rights in 21st century America). I think it might be more of intellectual dishonesty than ignorance.

 

If it's kosher to point out and criticize Palin for her gaffe's, then it is also kosher to point out and criticize Obama for his. Good for the goose, good for the gander sort of thing. And I say this as right winger who has stated many times that given the choice, I'd vote for Obama over Palin. I don't think the thread was derailed by someone pointing out that selective use of quotes can be used to make anyone look dumb.

 

Sure, that's fine now that the thread has expanded. I added a similar list of Palin gaffes and misstatements to even things out, even if the topic was about a look at a specific comment Palin made about an event in American history. And her attempt at explaining her comments against the real historical record; and then trying to blame it on a "gottcha" question. But let's be clear that Palin's comment was NOT a gaffe, but one that she intended to make. That's a major difference.

A gaffe: An unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder: "an unforgivable social gaffe."

Misstatment:To state wrongly or falsely. mis· state ment

I understand the conservative rush to attack Obama over gaffes and misstatements, but really anyone who is a pulbic speaker has made them. Most speakers are decent enough to own up to them, while Palin usually denies making them at all, and in the process, falsely blames someone else.

But there is a much deeper aspect to this worth exploring, now that the thread has opened up. Palin is really a poltical know-nothing whose misstatements are only an amusing curiousity. She does not craft policy, and she represents no one in an official role except herself, since she does not hold office and she is not even a formal candidate for office, so the pettiness and ignorance of her comments are for the most part, harmless.

However, Obama has a real record of public policy, which has a much greater impact on most everyone else, and as president, he represents and often speaks for the nation. He crafts policy, rather than just platitudes. Palin, not so much. It appears she can't even explain an historical event without turning it into a meaningless platitude.

 

I agree that all politicians make mis-statements, and Obama is no exception. I think the main difference between Obama and Palin is that you can tell when Palin is going to say something stupid: Her lips are moving.

 

It's also important to note the difference between mis-speaking (which every regular public speaker does, especially politicians) and being actually clueless about what you're talking about.

Any serious person can observe that – regardless of whether or not you like his politics – Barack Obama is a highly intelligent, knowledgeable man. Comparing his "57 states" quote to Palin's now infamous Paul Revere quote, for example, it's obvious what he meant to say. Does anyone honestly believe the President doesn't know how many states we have? Ditto his "Israel is an ally of Israel" and a few others. Since the error was minor and what he meant to say was obvious, no correction or retraction was necessary. Furthermore, Obama isn't known for misspeaking or getting his facts wrong, so when it occasionally happens it's not a cause for concern.

The same argument cannot be made for Sarah Palin. In her case, saying idiotic things is the rule, not the exception. Hers are not a wrong word here or there, but rather displaying a fundemental ignorance of the facts she deems herself an expert on. When given the chance to correct herself, she instead chooses to attack the media for throwing "gotcha" questions at her, which is absurd. She has at no point demonstrated her command of even basic American history, let alone the complex geopolitical understanding required of a serious Presidential or Vice-Presidential candidate. Barack Obama can do that with ease, because he actually IS serious and qualified. Sarah Palin is a national embarrassment, and the fact that she's even discussed as a possible Presidential candidate makes us the subject of ridicule around the world.

Lastly, I don't know who conservatives are trying to fool when they seriously try to claim that Obama's unable to speak without a teleprompter. I mean, really guys? It's such a desperate, juvenile and obviously untrue little swipe that I wonder why anyone even bothers making it. It's like shooting beebees at a tank.

EDIT: That'll teach me to post when Aldeth and Chandos are posting. We largely made the same point.