All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Who Is This Guy and What Has He Done With Chris Matthews?
That is funny. But, you gotta realize Chris Matthews probably thinks Palin is "stupid" and therefore easily beatable. He probably thinks Romney is more "sophisticated" and therefore would pose more of a real problem to Obama.
You'll notice he didn't say a thrill ran up his leg about Palin.
There's a top-notch blog I found, "Texas for Sarah Palin," at which they work full-time to do her justice. Easy work, but time consuming. I love her. She's the best thing to happen to America since the 60s began.
If Palin becomes president, I'm coming home the very next day.
Dag, I would never have guessed you would be such a Palin fan.
You don't think she's "stupid" then?
I mean, even I would say she needs to bone up a bit before she hits the big time.
But, I do agree with Matthews here that I have not seen a politician who knows how to work her audience better since Reagan. Obama is a very good campaigner, but he hasn't been so charismatic since he's been President.
We all know that Sarah Palin is "stupid," that Geo. W. Bush is a moron, that Regan was senile. We know that Obama is a genius, that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, that Carter was a first-rate engineer in the Navy. Some might rrecall that Gerald Ford was so stupid he couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. He was asked if he could still do twenty laps at the pool. He said, no, that after five his tongue gets tired.
See, I'm not so bright, but I do have this sneaking suspicion that every Democrat is a smart guy, and every Republican is stupid. Sometimes the average person goes out to vote and we end up with a Republican in the White House. The average person. George Carlin says that if we think the average guy is stupid, then consider that 50 percent of the people are stupider than he is. Those would be Republicans, we must assume, because all Republican presidents are stupid and all Democrats are geniuses. If Sarah Palin is a Republican, a priori she is stupid like those who like her and who are like her.
Because I'm so stupid I liked her instantly and have come to love her since. She's stupid just like all the people back home who married and had kids and raised families and had jobs and responsibilities and made the nation the evil hell-hole that America is, obviously that being the world's worst nation in history, worse by far than, say, Sudan. We should all be so lucky as to be governed by geniuses who created the utopia that is Chicago or Gary, Ind.
But I'm evil and stupid and I love Sarah Palin. I'm not a genius, so I missed all the great things about Sudan. That would make me like most Republicans, conservative independents, and average Americans generally, which is to say, it proves that I'm stupid.
Oh, so you get it, do you. That makes me wonder if you're some kind of genius, like maybe a Democrat! I don't get it, which means I must be a Republican.
The fact that I wrote the comment in the first place, well, maybe it means I used to get it but now I don't because I like Sarah Palin.
(Somebody help me out here, I'm dreadfully confused.)
Naturally you are confused. "Stupid" people are always confused, because they can't figure out what is going on around them.
I like Sarah Palin. And, I think she would make a great President, but I think she needs to work hard to be above reproach.
Also, you gotta admit that while she possesses Reaganesque charisma, she certainly does not possess his visionary erudition. Reagan, though he was a "stupid", "senile" man, did spend 25 years of so traveling the country, warning about the evils of Communism, and explaining how to destroy the Soviet Union. When he was elected he put the plan into motion, and what do you know, the "stupid" guy got away with it.
Palin has not articulated anything of such scope. Yeah, she thinks in a paradigm with which I am extremely comfortable, but she has not shown herself to be a visionary.
She's got time to learn whatever she needs to know to start. Being president is not a job one knows how to do; it's a job one does as one does it from instinct and abilities in other areas that one brings to the job. She's got enoug now to start out well, but in a few years she'll have more than enough. As well, unlike Obama, she'll bring with her decent people as advisors, not trendy Maoists and backstreet Communists. She'll bring Main Street back to America.
Anther way to put it then, and one even Obama recognizes, is that the presidency is sui generis, a job without parallel. There's no best preparation for the job, only the best person being important. Any competent administrator can do the administrative job; the important part of the job of president is not administrative but, dare I say, moral.
We might, if we're petty and gullible and fashion-oriented, sling cliches overheard, repeated cliches we might hope will win us charm points among our fellows, speak of Sarah Palin as stupid, ignorant, and evil, none of which are plausible to the person of average intelligence. the actual and secondary question is whether Palin has the administrative skill to manage on a world scale. She cannot plan for that, nor can anyone, because there is only the one job that allows for it, on the job as president, and that in flux by the minute. Has Palin ever read a newspaper or looked at a map? Only a committed Irrationalist can seriously propose anything remotely like that kind of criticism. The rest of us can ask legitimately if she is able to handle the job on the minute by minute basis as she did in the state of Alaska.
That brings us to the only serious question we should have about Sarah Palin: is she able to stick it out when things go bad? It's my opinion that her resignation from the governorship was a smart move, but now part of Palin's campaign for anything is a matter of proving that point right. If she doesn't succeed far more in her efforts outside of the governorship, then we might have to question whether she gave up the good for the lesser.
The one question that is paramount is the question I won't ask, because to me and those who think as if not like I do, it is obvious: Is Palin the right moral person.
Palin IS smart, and with a lupine feel for the kill. She is not from Boston, Dallas, NY or Washington. She did not graduate with a degree in law or polysci or public policy. She is not from Harvard, or Stanford. Idaho State, I think? Welcome to Pocatello baby, if so.
Thus, she is from us. That's the WHY of the hate for her. She is not of the elite in any way except her understanding of what actual people need every day, and the elite's self knowledge of that lack in them, powers the degree of vitriol she has faced.
Her education and interest, .... inventory has been limited up until 2008, and the fact of that has been used by the Couric's, AND the Noonan's to denigrate her.
Epa and Dag, I agree with you both. Palin is smart. I also agree with Epa that her weakness in the McCain Candidacy (and, she was more of a strength than a weakness) had more to do with, as Epa said, her intellectual inventory" up until that time.
Is she the right moral candidate for the job?
I think so.
As a guy who comes from a Marketing and Advertising background, my questions about the viability of a candidate always start with, "Does this Candidate have a story the American people want to hear"?
I think Palin does have that story. I do not think Mitt Romney has a story Americans want to hear. The best story he can offer up is competency. That MIGHT work in 2012, if Obama has thoroughly destroyed America. If not, I think Palin has the best story.
What it comes down to is, does the candidate have a story America wants to tell herself about herself; in other words, is the story of the Candidate the story America wants to hear about America?
This is why Obama won. He had a story Americans wanted to hear about America.
I think of myself as a traveller, even though I haven't moved far in some years recently. I travel in the sense that I move from place to place in search of the universal and the eternal. As I get older I see that as an event rather than as a place or idea occurring scenically. Life is an event, but a day is only a scene. A series of events, even if seemingly disconnected, are a cyclorama, all of it combined in a telos one cannot turn to as yet. Plato, whom I hate deeply, writes of this as the requirement of periagoge, the "turning around." Travelling is a way of "turning around" in the attempt to see more than is possible in an attempted histasthai, attempt to stand. The point is aporia, to see more by turning and seeing around the corners of now and then realizing there is ever more to come, knowing the end is there somewhere but not in vision.
Sarah Palin is our turning around to see more of what is the larger event of our nation and time, beyond the scene of today's limited narrative, and an opening into more of the unknown. By Obama trying to close the eschatological and ushering in the eschathon through, f.i. universal health care, he attempts to close the event and call an end to the attempt to see more: problem solved; and now let's solve another till finally the nation is perfectly Obama; the telos, hezomai, to sit.
To be an individual is to move of ones own agency and of ones volition, not knowing the result before hand. thus, one does not replay the same scene endlessly until it crumbles into dust; one moves from scene to scene within the event unfolding. If one is daring, or in my case, reckless, then one has a chance to glimpse the cracks in the unfolded. This is, to put it simply, an act that allows for the competitive marketplace: not knowing in advance what will sell and who will buy but acting on faith that such will be better than not.
Palin opens the world of man to the turning away from set (or sit,) and returns (Gr. palin) America to its natural destiny of travelling beyond the normative now in favour of the movement toward the eternal and universal aporic telos. Because we do not "know," we must act in faith; while the nihilist cannot act in faith because he has no possibility of faith, and must therefore not move, must sit, must not ever change or allow for change lest the eschathon disappear from his visionary, i.e. Gnostic, promontory.
What Obama has done in office so far, is separate himself from the people. Gradually, even those who voted for him, have come to realize he doesn't speak for them. He is not one of us.
As time goes on, the wall he is building will grow taller and wider. By the time we get to a new presidential election, people are going to be hungry, desperately seeking someone who will speak for us, be like us.
That very well could be Palin. A regular, down to earth, eats corn flakes in the morning, Joe.
14 comments:
That is funny. But, you gotta realize Chris Matthews probably thinks Palin is "stupid" and therefore easily beatable. He probably thinks Romney is more "sophisticated" and therefore would pose more of a real problem to Obama.
You'll notice he didn't say a thrill ran up his leg about Palin.
;-)
There's a top-notch blog I found, "Texas for Sarah Palin," at which they work full-time to do her justice. Easy work, but time consuming. I love her. She's the best thing to happen to America since the 60s began.
If Palin becomes president, I'm coming home the very next day.
Dag,
I would never have guessed you would be such a Palin fan.
You don't think she's "stupid" then?
I mean, even I would say she needs to bone up a bit before she hits the big time.
But, I do agree with Matthews here that I have not seen a politician who knows how to work her audience better since Reagan. Obama is a very good campaigner, but he hasn't been so charismatic since he's been President.
We all know that Sarah Palin is "stupid," that Geo. W. Bush is a moron, that Regan was senile. We know that Obama is a genius, that Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, that Carter was a first-rate engineer in the Navy. Some might rrecall that Gerald Ford was so stupid he couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time. He was asked if he could still do twenty laps at the pool. He said, no, that after five his tongue gets tired.
See, I'm not so bright, but I do have this sneaking suspicion that every Democrat is a smart guy, and every Republican is stupid. Sometimes the average person goes out to vote and we end up with a Republican in the White House. The average person. George Carlin says that if we think the average guy is stupid, then consider that 50 percent of the people are stupider than he is. Those would be Republicans, we must assume, because all Republican presidents are stupid and all Democrats are geniuses. If Sarah Palin is a Republican, a priori she is stupid like those who like her and who are like her.
Because I'm so stupid I liked her instantly and have come to love her since. She's stupid just like all the people back home who married and had kids and raised families and had jobs and responsibilities and made the nation the evil hell-hole that America is, obviously that being the world's worst nation in history, worse by far than, say, Sudan. We should all be so lucky as to be governed by geniuses who created the utopia that is Chicago or Gary, Ind.
But I'm evil and stupid and I love Sarah Palin. I'm not a genius, so I missed all the great things about Sudan. That would make me like most Republicans, conservative independents, and average Americans generally, which is to say, it proves that I'm stupid.
Yep. I get it.
Oh, so you get it, do you. That makes me wonder if you're some kind of genius, like maybe a Democrat! I don't get it, which means I must be a Republican.
The fact that I wrote the comment in the first place, well, maybe it means I used to get it but now I don't because I like Sarah Palin.
(Somebody help me out here, I'm dreadfully confused.)
Naturally you are confused.
"Stupid" people are always confused, because they can't figure out what is going on around them.
I like Sarah Palin. And, I think she would make a great President, but I think she needs to work hard to be above reproach.
Also, you gotta admit that while she possesses Reaganesque charisma, she certainly does not possess his visionary erudition. Reagan, though he was a "stupid", "senile" man, did spend 25 years of so traveling the country, warning about the evils of Communism, and explaining how to destroy the Soviet Union. When he was elected he put the plan into motion, and what do you know, the "stupid" guy got away with it.
Palin has not articulated anything of such scope. Yeah, she thinks in a paradigm with which I am extremely comfortable, but she has not shown herself to be a visionary.
Am I wrong?
She's got time to learn whatever she needs to know to start. Being president is not a job one knows how to do; it's a job one does as one does it from instinct and abilities in other areas that one brings to the job. She's got enoug now to start out well, but in a few years she'll have more than enough. As well, unlike Obama, she'll bring with her decent people as advisors, not trendy Maoists and backstreet Communists. She'll bring Main Street back to America.
Huh?
(she makes my legs etc tingle)
Anther way to put it then, and one even Obama recognizes, is that the presidency is sui generis, a job without parallel. There's no best preparation for the job, only the best person being important. Any competent administrator can do the administrative job; the important part of the job of president is not administrative but, dare I say, moral.
We might, if we're petty and gullible and fashion-oriented, sling cliches overheard, repeated cliches we might hope will win us charm points among our fellows, speak of Sarah Palin as stupid, ignorant, and evil, none of which are plausible to the person of average intelligence. the actual and secondary question is whether Palin has the administrative skill to manage on a world scale. She cannot plan for that, nor can anyone, because there is only the one job that allows for it, on the job as president, and that in flux by the minute. Has Palin ever read a newspaper or looked at a map? Only a committed Irrationalist can seriously propose anything remotely like that kind of criticism. The rest of us can ask legitimately if she is able to handle the job on the minute by minute basis as she did in the state of Alaska.
That brings us to the only serious question we should have about Sarah Palin: is she able to stick it out when things go bad? It's my opinion that her resignation from the governorship was a smart move, but now part of Palin's campaign for anything is a matter of proving that point right. If she doesn't succeed far more in her efforts outside of the governorship, then we might have to question whether she gave up the good for the lesser.
The one question that is paramount is the question I won't ask, because to me and those who think as if not like I do, it is obvious: Is Palin the right moral person.
Palin IS smart, and with a lupine feel for the kill. She is not from Boston, Dallas, NY or Washington. She did not graduate with a degree in law or polysci or public policy. She is not from Harvard, or Stanford. Idaho State, I think? Welcome to Pocatello baby, if so.
Thus, she is from us. That's the WHY of the hate for her. She is not of the elite in any way except her understanding of what actual people need every day, and the elite's self knowledge of that lack in them, powers the degree of vitriol she has faced.
Her education and interest, .... inventory has been limited up until 2008, and the fact of that has been used by the Couric's, AND the Noonan's to denigrate her.
Epa and Dag,
I agree with you both. Palin is smart. I also agree with Epa that her weakness in the McCain Candidacy (and, she was more of a strength than a weakness) had more to do with, as Epa said, her intellectual inventory" up until that time.
Is she the right moral candidate for the job?
I think so.
As a guy who comes from a Marketing and Advertising background, my questions about the viability of a candidate always start with, "Does this Candidate have a story the American people want to hear"?
I think Palin does have that story. I do not think Mitt Romney has a story Americans want to hear. The best story he can offer up is competency. That MIGHT work in 2012, if Obama has thoroughly destroyed America. If not, I think Palin has the best story.
What it comes down to is, does the candidate have a story America wants to tell herself about herself; in other words, is the story of the Candidate the story America wants to hear about America?
This is why Obama won. He had a story Americans wanted to hear about America.
I think of myself as a traveller, even though I haven't moved far in some years recently. I travel in the sense that I move from place to place in search of the universal and the eternal. As I get older I see that as an event rather than as a place or idea occurring scenically. Life is an event, but a day is only a scene. A series of events, even if seemingly disconnected, are a cyclorama, all of it combined in a telos one cannot turn to as yet. Plato, whom I hate deeply, writes of this as the requirement of periagoge, the "turning around." Travelling is a way of "turning around" in the attempt to see more than is possible in an attempted histasthai, attempt to stand. The point is aporia, to see more by turning and seeing around the corners of now and then realizing there is ever more to come, knowing the end is there somewhere but not in vision.
Sarah Palin is our turning around to see more of what is the larger event of our nation and time, beyond the scene of today's limited narrative, and an opening into more of the unknown. By Obama trying to close the eschatological and ushering in the eschathon through, f.i. universal health care, he attempts to close the event and call an end to the attempt to see more: problem solved; and now let's solve another till finally the nation is perfectly Obama; the telos, hezomai, to sit.
To be an individual is to move of ones own agency and of ones volition, not knowing the result before hand. thus, one does not replay the same scene endlessly until it crumbles into dust; one moves from scene to scene within the event unfolding. If one is daring, or in my case, reckless, then one has a chance to glimpse the cracks in the unfolded. This is, to put it simply, an act that allows for the competitive marketplace: not knowing in advance what will sell and who will buy but acting on faith that such will be better than not.
Palin opens the world of man to the turning away from set (or sit,) and returns (Gr. palin) America to its natural destiny of travelling beyond the normative now in favour of the movement toward the eternal and universal aporic telos. Because we do not "know," we must act in faith; while the nihilist cannot act in faith because he has no possibility of faith, and must therefore not move, must sit, must not ever change or allow for change lest the eschathon disappear from his visionary, i.e. Gnostic, promontory.
So that's why I like Sarah Palin.
What Obama has done in office so far, is separate himself from the people. Gradually, even those who voted for him, have come to realize he doesn't speak for them. He is not one of us.
As time goes on, the wall he is building will grow taller and wider. By the time we get to a new presidential election, people are going to be hungry, desperately seeking someone who will speak for us, be like us.
That very well could be Palin. A regular, down to earth, eats corn flakes in the morning, Joe.
Post a Comment