Sarah Palin Done

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Not true.

George Bush neither applied to, nor graduated from Yale's law school. He graduated with a C average and a B.A. in History. It's widely understood that he was a "legacy" admission--a common practice at schools with large endowments.

He later attended the Harvard MBA program. But he never studied law anywhere.

Bill Clinton, by contrast, earned scholarships en route to a Bachelor of Foreign Service from Georgetown University, then earned a Rhodes scholarship to study Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford. He then went on to earn a J.D. from Yale law school in 1973.

You can argue as to what any of this means. But in a strictly scholastic sense, Bush's resume comes nowhere near achieving what Clinton's did. Sort of like their presidencies, come to think of it...

Sort of like their personal lives.

One cheats on his wife, one doesnt.

[Hack&Lube]

Clinton is a genius. He's also a chronic womanizer and cheated on his wife (on much more than that one famous occasion over their marriage). Since when did marital fidelity have anything to do with how smart you are or how good a President you make? It's the same posters in this thread and over on the MJ thread applying their moral superiority and bent to every topic in judging people.

Palin might be the classic conservative mother. Raised a large family, has a mentally disabled child, and faces the problems that average mothers might face (teen pregnancy). That's all magnificently commendable - but she and the Republican machine trotted out this family over and over again as part of the campaign vehicle. That makes it fair game for political pundintry or parody/comedy. She makes this all worse by doing bizarre things in her political career and not making any sense at all when she speaks. When Bill Clinton says something, I listen to him because I know that he knows what he is talking about, he has the intelligence, the education, the experience, and a grasp of his audience. Sarah Palin seems often to be in her own world, unable to actually speak anything definitive or relevant about politics other than through terrible analogies to the things that she knows about in her small worldview and limited experiece in putting blame on her shortcomings on others. Just watch that youtube resignation speech video and ask yourself if this lady knows what she is talking about aside from relating everything to basketball and making herself the victim. I don't care to make any moral judgements about her, I only speak of the things that matter to me in somebody who supposedly was getting in line to be leader of the free world.

[Rerun]

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. There's got to be more to this story than whats on the surface.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Sort of like their personal lives.

One cheats on his wife, one doesnt.

Also, Laser Tag is awesome.

I assume we're playing the "non-sequitur game." Am I winning?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. There's got to be more to this story than whats on the surface.

I think she is going to get a talk show.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by troutman

I think she is going to get a talk show.

And make a lot of money from her book and speaking engagements.

[Hack&Lube]

To cap off this thread...

BLEECH

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Wait--a Rhodes scholar with a southern accent is a "rube"---and it's people who criticize Sarah Palin who are "elitists"?

Forgive me for finding that a smidge weird.

The good old James Carville spin... But you know, if the letters behind someone's name speak precisely to one's intellect...

Some good summer reading - No One Left to Lie To by Christopher Hitchens.

[CrusaderPi]

This looks shopped.

I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

The good old James Carville spin... But you know, if the letters behind someone's name speak precisely to one's intellect...

Some good summer reading - No One Left to Lie To by Christopher Hitchens.

I trust you're aware that Christopher Hitchens' irrational hatred for the Clintons is legendary in political circles. It's up there with his penchant for white linen trousers and making fun of religious people.

In any case, I wasn't claiming that Clinton was a good guy. You claimed he was a "rube." That's nonsense. Bill Clinton's a very smart, well educated guy, with the sort of resume that relatively few people have. I doubt Hitchens claims anything different anyway.

George W. Bush, on the other hand (who, for the record, is in my opinion smarter than most people give him credit for being) has his picture in the dictionary next to the entry for "mediocrity." Without family connections, he never would have got into either Yale or Harvard. Both times he passed by the skin of his teeth. Not because he's dumb; he just wasn't interested in school, skirts and brews being more his thing at that stage of his life (and hey, I can kind of relate!).

But to say that he and Clinton are on the same intellectual plane is just delusional. That has nothing to do with whether you think Clinton is a good person, or was a good president--though he compares pretty favourably to GWB by any relevant benchmark.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I trust you're aware that Christopher Hitchens' irrational hatred for the Clintons is legendary in political circles. It's up there with his penchant for white linen trousers and making fun of religious people.

In any case, I wasn't claiming that Clinton was a good guy. You claimed he was a "rube." That's nonsense. Bill Clinton's a very smart, well educated guy, with the sort of resume that relatively few people have. I doubt Hitchens claims anything different anyway.

George W. Bush, on the other hand (who, for the record, is in my opinion smarter than most people give him credit for being) has his picture in the dictionary next to the entry for "mediocrity." Without family connections, he never would have got into either Yale or Harvard. Both times he passed by the skin of his teeth. Not because he's dumb; he just wasn't interested in school, skirts and brews being more his thing at that stage of his life (and hey, I can kind of relate!).

But to say that he and Clinton are on the same intellectual plane is just delusional. That has nothing to do with whether you think Clinton is a good person, or was a good president--though he compares pretty favourably to GWB by any relevant benchmark.

Ah fair enough, but as I said before, doesn't someone's intelligence encompass their morality as well? Bill Clinton has none.

And Hitchens' hatred of the Clintons isn't exactly irrational, his arguments, while polemic, are documented and researched. Clinton is a stupid scumbag. I don't care if he is a Rhodes scholar, was there any intellectual success to Clinton's presidency? Copying Reagan policy and bombing Sudanese pharmaceutical factories don't count.

[Thor]

I love Hitchens, Letters to a young contrarian is an excellent quick read.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ah fair enough, but as I said before, doesn't someone's intelligence encompass their morality as well? Bill Clinton has none.

And Hitchens' hatred of the Clintons isn't exactly irrational, his arguments, while polemic, are documented and researched. Clinton is a stupid scumbag. I don't care if he is a Rhodes scholar, was there any intellectual success to Clinton's presidency? Copying Reagan policy and bombing Sudanese pharmaceutical factories don't count.

What do you mean by "intellectual success"? Was there "intellectual success" in Reagan's Presidency?

If Clinton is a stupid scumbag, where does that leave the rest of the lot?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ah fair enough, but as I said before, doesn't someone's intelligence encompass their morality as well?

No it doesn't. I think I've identified your flaw in reasoning.

I love the conservative morality police, if mostly because their closets contain more skeletons than the titanic.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by valo403

No it doesn't. I think I've identified your flaw in reasoning.

I love the conservative morality police, if mostly because their closets contain more skeletons than the titanic.

Ah I'm not a conservative. I think Reagan was just as bad.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ah I'm not a conservative. I think Reagan was just as bad.

So just morality police it is then.

I've never understood the outrage at a president's infidelity, or anyone esle for that matter. I couldn't care less about the escapades of the president, he could be rolling troops of midget hookers through the oval office, I don't care, just do the job correctly. The only people who should care are those personally impacted, like wives and children. A past scandal may raise some questions about decision making when I make my choice of who to vote for, but once you're in there just do the job well and I'll let pretty much any personal life issues slide.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

Ah fair enough, but as I said before, doesn't someone's intelligence encompass their morality as well? Bill Clinton has none.

If that were true, Heidegger would be the dumbest man in history.

I disagree with your assessment of Clinton's presidency--and I think we can agree that not just anyone wins a Rhodes scholarship. As for Hitchens, he's hated Clinton since 1992, by his own admission--but if you want to say that the Clintons are no saints, I'll gladly agree. They've done many awful things.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If that were true, Heidegger would be the dumbest man in history.

I disagree with your assessment of Clinton's presidency--and I think we can agree that not just anyone wins a Rhodes scholarship. As for Hitchens, he's hated Clinton since 1992, by his own admission--but if you want to say that the Clintons are no saints, I'll gladly agree. They've done many awful things.

I guess I must be pretty dumb too. I had google Heidegger to find out who the heck he was.

[Pastiche]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If that were true, Heidegger would be the dumbest man in history.

Heidegger Heidegger was a real pissed beggar who would drink you under the table...

[/python]

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If that were true, Heidegger would be the dumbest man in history.

I disagree with your assessment of Clinton's presidency--and I think we can agree that not just anyone wins a Rhodes scholarship. As for Hitchens, he's hated Clinton since 1992, by his own admission--but if you want to say that the Clintons are no saints, I'll gladly agree. They've done many awful things.

Heidegger is brilliant, but dangerous. Besides philosophical evil can at least be taken seriously. Clinton was just a grab-ass.