Gov. Palin Resigns (Quits)

[Texsox]

Care to enlighten us with a few examples of her intelligence?

 

If she can breath and feed herself she is more intelligent than the media portrayal.

[BigSqwert]

If she can breath and feed herself she is more intelligent than the media portrayal.

Thought so.

[Texsox]

Thought so.

 

How do you prove it? SAT scores? GPA?

[clyons]

Re Palin's "intelligence:" As a general matter, I think our society is sadly predisposed to assume that attractive women are less than bright, and forces them to "prove" otherwise at levels not required of others. I also think we tend to assume that people with accents who "talk funny" are inferior to ouselves. No question that both of these factors worked against her, not to mention the fact that she was hyper-scrutinized by the media.

 

Nevertheless, and with all of that said, I still think she's a dim bulb (and I think Quayle was too). I've never heard either of them say anything extemporaneously that remotely impressed me, and yet I've heard them say more than their fair share of head-scratchers (which I realize the media has gleefully served up to me at a much higher rate than it has vis-a-vis other politicians). Granted, I've never studied their writings, but just like advance speeches, those are heavily edited and polished (if not outrightly written) by helpers, and thus, to me, should be somewhat discounted.

 

 

[Texsox]

Granted, I've never studied their writings, but just like advance speeches, those are heavily edited and polished (if not outrightly written) by helpers, and thus, to me, should be somewhat discounted.

 

All good points. I also believe off the cuff remarks are not a true gauge of intelligence. So pretty much we would have to discount every factor that is being used to create that image of intelligence or buffoonery*.

 

 

*just for FlaSoxxJim

[BigSqwert]

When talking about her intelligence I think we need to define the particulars. In this case, intelligence to be President of the U.S. Sure she's intelligent enough to be the manager at Chili's but I haven't seen anything that defines intellectual excellence, a trait most of us would agree should be required for our leader. She's not eloquent, she wasn't a great student, and she shows very little knowledge of basic facts about how our government works.

[clyons]

All good points. I also believe off the cuff remarks are not a true gauge of intelligence. So pretty much we would have to discount every factor that is being used to create that image of intelligence or buffoonery*.

 

 

*just for FlaSoxxJim

 

In a sense, there is no "true gauge" because its relative. Its kinda like Potter Stewart's pornography standard ("I know it when I see it").

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

I've said it before, but there was a "tell all" news article published shortly after the election (I should try and find it). WHen McCain's people were lookign for a VP, he name was presented to them.

Found it....

After that first brief meeting, Davis remained in discreet but frequent contact with Palin and her staff — gathering tapes of speeches and interviews, as he was doing with all potential vice-presidential candidates. One tape in particular struck Davis as arresting: an interview with Palin and Gov. Janet Napolitano, the Arizona Democrat, on “The Charlie Rose Show” that was shown in October 2007. Reviewing the tape, it didn’t concern Davis that Palin seemed out of her depth on health-care issues or that, when asked to name her favorite candidate among the Republican field, she said, “I’m undecided.” What he liked was how she stuck to her pet issues — energy independence and ethics reform — and thereby refused to let Rose manage the interview. This was the case throughout all of the Palin footage. Consistency. Confidence. And . . . well, look at her. A friend had said to Davis: “The way you pick a vice president is, you get a frame of Time magazine, and you put the pictures of the people in that frame. You look at who fits that frame best — that’s your V. P.”

[kapkomet]

Dan Quayle was VERY intelligent, potato, potatoe aside. His casting as "stupid" was done very well by the media. Don't forget, Reagan was "stupid" too. All "conservatives" are "stupid" as defined by the MSM, whether they are or not. Liberals, on the other hand, are the most intelligent people on earth.

 

I have never understood the paradigm as to why people who want less of everything from our government are considered "stupid". Yet, those who want to give up their own freedoms to do what they want are considered the most intelligent. It seems to me that the opposite would be true - those of you who want everything to be done by our government are honestly drones. You don't want to think for yourself, you want the thinking to be done for you. That's "stupid".

 

[Texsox]

Dan Quayle was VERY intelligent, potato, potatoe aside. His casting as "stupid" was done very well by the media. Don't forget, Reagan was "stupid" too. All "conservatives" are "stupid" as defined by the MSM, whether they are or not. Liberals, on the other hand, are the most intelligent people on earth.

 

I have never understood the paradigm as to why people who want less of everything from our government are considered "stupid". Yet, those who want to give up their own freedoms to do what they want are considered the most intelligent. It seems to me that the opposite would be true - those of you who want everything to be done by our government are honestly drones. You don't want to think for yourself, you want the thinking to be done for you. That's "stupid".

 

Or why people who work for the government are stupid, lazy, inefficient, etc. but private sector employees are innovative, hard working, effective, etc.

[lostfan]

kap you somehow managed to assimilate hyperbole and dramatic oversimplification into the same post. Good job.

[kapkomet]

Or why people who work for the government are stupid, lazy, inefficient, etc. but private sector employees are innovative, hard working, effective, etc.

Who says that? People who work for the government aren't any of these things, but as an ENTITY, they are all of those things.

[lostfan]

Who says that?

Really, kap? Cmon. You're refining the conservative narrative and doing the exact opposite for the liberal one and turning it into a caricature.

[kapkomet]

Really, kap? Cmon. You're refining the conservative narrative and doing the exact opposite for the liberal one and turning it into a caricature.

No, I'm not. Read what I said again.

[lostfan]

No, I'm not. Read what I said again.

Liberals want the government to do everything for them and they hate freedom because they are stupid, conservatives are enlightened, clear thinkers and therefore they're the intelligent ones.

[Soxy]

When talking about her intelligence I think we need to define the particulars. In this case, intelligence to be President of the U.S. Sure she's intelligent enough to be the manager at Chili's but I haven't seen anything that defines intellectual excellence, a trait most of us would agree should be required for our leader. She's not eloquent, she wasn't a great student, and she shows very little knowledge of basic facts about how our government works.

I will set the department of law on your for such libel!

[kapkomet]

Liberals want the government to do everything for them and they hate freedom because they are stupid, conservatives are enlightened, clear thinkers and therefore they're the intelligent ones.

(Liberals) do, but that doesn't make them "stupid", IMO, it makes them uninformed, perhaps lazy, depending on the individual. But that's not what Tex was talking about.

 

(Note: ETA - most of the "liberals" around here are informed and understand their decisions. As a whole, I don't think many do. Just throwing that out there).

Edited July 10, 2009 by kapkomet

[kapkomet]

I will set the department of law on your for such libel!

Nicely played.

[lostfan]

(Liberals) do, but that doesn't make them "stupid", IMO, it makes them uninformed, perhaps lazy, depending on the individual. But that's not what Tex was talking about.

 

(Note: ETA - most of the "liberals" around here are informed and understand their decisions. As a whole, I don't think many do. Just throwing that out there).

Yet, those who want to give up their own freedoms to do what they want are considered the most intelligent. It seems to me that the opposite would be true - those of you who want everything to be done by our government are honestly drones. You don't want to think for yourself, you want the thinking to be done for you. That's "stupid".

 

It's like nailing jello to a tree.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's like nailing jello to a tree.

I have never heard that analogy before, but will now be on a mission to use it in conversation whenever the next opportunity presents itself.

 

[Soxy]

(Liberals) do, but that doesn't make them "stupid", IMO, it makes them uninformed, perhaps lazy, depending on the individual. But that's not what Tex was talking about.

 

(Note: ETA - most of the "liberals" around here are informed and understand their decisions. As a whole, I don't think many do. Just throwing that out there).

So, what you're saying is that soxtalk is home to a disproportionate amount of smart educated liberals. But in general, most liberals are uninformed/ignorant. So, if you gave a civics test to a big group and asked them to identify their political ideology, people who claimed to be conservative would do better. (With the exceptions of the freakishly informed liberal posters here.)

 

So, by that theory, most of the people who have been CEOs of banks and companies that have gone under have been liberal. Or that must unsuccessful governments are headed by liberals--so liberal governments are likely to be less stable.That would be an interesting study.

[Soxbadger]

When people are using the terms "conservative" and "liberal" it would be really interesting to see how they are actually defining those terms.

 

For example:

 

I have never understood the paradigm as to why people who want less of everything from our government are considered "stupid". Yet, those who want to give up their own freedoms to do what they want are considered the most intelligent.

 

I assume the "yet those who want to give up their own freedoms" is referring to liberals. What is strange is that true social liberal should support of personal freedom more than a true social conservative. Social conservatives are the group who is the most for restraining personal freedom; war on drugs, christian coalition, morality in govt., tough on crime, pro-life, restricting marriage to heterosexuals, and so on and so forth.

 

Conservative (imo) doesnt mean what you are trying to make it mean. In fact, I have never met a conservative who is willing to come close to my ideas on keeping the govt. away from our "freedoms".

 

If social freedom is your top priority, your going to be a liberal. If on the other hand you are looking for economic freedom, you most likely would be a conservative.

 

I personally think that economic freedom is less important than social freedom, so im a liberal.

[kapkomet]

So, what you're saying is that soxtalk is home to a disproportionate amount of smart educated liberals. But in general, most liberals are uninformed/ignorant. So, if you gave a civics test to a big group and asked them to identify their political ideology, people who claimed to be conservative would do better. (With the exceptions of the freakishly informed liberal posters here.)

 

So, by that theory, most of the people who have been CEOs of banks and companies that have gone under have been liberals. That would be an interesting study.

That gets into a whole different thing. I mean, what are you going to test them on? I don't know that they would do "better".

[Balta1701]

So, by that theory, most of the people who have been CEOs of banks and companies that have gone under have been liberal. Or that must unsuccessful governments are headed by liberals--so liberal governments are likely to be less stable.That would be an interesting study.

I can fire back some data in to this discussion. Not exactly on the CEO question, but occasionally (and conveniently enough, 2 days ago) people put out surveys of the political leanings of the educated. At least out of active members of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (actual working scientists). They're Democrats by a 55 to 6 margin.

[lostfan]

I personally think that economic freedom is less important than social freedom, so im a liberal.

I actually think that TOO MUCH economic freedom (e.g. America around 1885) actually erodes social freedom. Instead of the government controlling you, the corporation you work for controls you. Where we are, is somewhere in between and that's where I want it to be.