Palin: Round Two

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

I vote for folks based on their policy positions by and large. I don't agree with many of her views. earl

So " rank amateurishness" that makes her unqualified for any office is defined by policy positions different from yours. You don't see this as typical liberal snobbishness?

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

So " rank amateurishness" that makes her unqualified for any office is defined by policy positions different from yours. You don't see this as typical liberal snobbishness?

This is yet another of your many examples of putting words into somebody else's mouth-clearly that is not what I said. This is what makes it tedious to dialogue with you Nick. In fact, until you knock off that annoying habit, I will not dialogue with you further about anything. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

This is yet another of your many examples of putting words into somebody else's mouth-clearly that is not what I said. This is what makes it tedious to dialogue with you Nick. In fact, until you knock off that annoying habit, I will not dialogue with you further about anything. earl

Do what you will; it is not the issue. I like to understand Sarah from the antagonism of the liberal mindset and you've helped me to do so.. You are so intent on saying what appears to be politically correct, you don't bother to see if it makes any sense.

The liberal mindset has this annoying idea that it is right and there is something ignorant and or amateurish about those that don't admit it. You are so convinced you are right that you have no idea how snobbish it appears. It is your way; not mine.

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

The liberal mindset has this annoying idea that it is right and there is something ignorant and or amateurish about those that don't admit it. You are so convinced you are right that you have no idea how snobbish it appears. It is your way; not mine.

Are you sure? And are you not convinced that you are also right?

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Are you sure? And are you not convinced that you are also right?

There is nothing wrong in believing you are right. The problem is the attitude towards those you disagree with. I've noticed that liberals have a very condescending attitude towards those they disagree with.

Earl tells me that "I think what this indicates is the same quaity the made Palin attractive to some: her rank amateurishness, which some translated into genuineness. I could appreciate that about her though would never vote for the lady for any office."

OK so the successful governor of Alaska demonstrates rank amateurishness and unqualified to be governor. When asked about the value of such appreciation I learn

I vote for folks based on their policy positions by and large. I don't agree with many of her views. earl.

What else can it mean but her rank amateurishness is revealed by not having Earl's views?

It is one thing to believe you are right and quite another to assume those that disagree are rank amateurs. They may actually be aware of something the liberal is not.

I've noticed this liberal mindset to take the position that the ignorant will come to see their errors once it is explained properly by the liberals. As part of the great unwashed, I don't buy it.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

There is nothing wrong in believing you are right. The problem is the attitude towards those you disagree with. I've noticed that liberals have a very condescending attitude towards those they disagree with.

Earl tells me that "I think what this indicates is the same quaity the made Palin attractive to some: her rank amateurishness, which some translated into genuineness. I could appreciate that about her though would never vote for the lady for any office."

OK so the successful governor of Alaska demonstrates rank amateurishness and unqualified to be governor. When asked about the value of such appreciation I learn



What else can it mean but her rank amateurishness is revealed by not having Earl's views?

It is one thing to believe you are right and quite another to assume those that disagree are rank amateurs. They may actually be aware of something the liberal is not.

I've noticed this liberal mindset to take the position that the ignorant will come to see their errors once it is explained properly by the liberals. As part of the great unwashed, I don't buy it.

Don't know why I bother as you seem incapable of actually drawing logical conclusions from what somebody has actually written, Nick. But thought I'd make 1 last attempt to point out what would be obvious to everyone else here: there was absolutely no connection between my comments about appreciating Palin's amateurishness and the fact that I vote for people based on their policy positions. Obama is more of an amateur in terms of political experience than McCain. Did I vote for McCain? I didn't agree with McCain. That, IMO, certainly didn't make him an amateur. So, see this would be an example of using a logical deductive process to figure out what someone else actually means. If you want to show yourself able and willing to engage in reasonable dialogue with others here, you'll use some semblance of this sort of deductive thinking, Nick. Now, I'll consider 2 options of dealing with you: return to ignoring any illogical response to me by you or, in my attempts to either improve your logical reasoning or simply drive you nuts, will continually ask you to review your illogical deductions. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Don't know why I bother as you seem incapable of actually drawing logical conclusions from what somebody has actually written, Nick. But thought I'd make 1 last attempt to point out what would be obvious to everyone else here: there was absolutely no connection between my comments about appreciating Palin's amateurishness and the fact that I vote for people based on their policy positions. Obama is more of an amateur in terms of political experience than McCain. Did I vote for McCain? I didn't agree with McCain. That, IMO, certainly didn't make him an amateur. So, see this would be an example of using a logical deductive process to figure out what someone else actually means. If you want to show yourself able and willing to engage in reasonable dialogue with others here, you'll use some semblance of this sort of deductive thinking, Nick. Now, I'll consider 2 options of dealing with you: return to ignoring any illogical response to me by you or, in my attempts to either improve your logical reasoning or simply drive you nuts, will continually ask you to review your illogical deductions. earl

Earl

Don't know why I bother as you seem incapable of actually drawing logical conclusions from what somebody has actually written, Nick.

Well by what you just wrote, it seems that you've bothered in order to help this poor naive soul.

But thought I'd make 1 last attempt to point out what would be obvious to everyone else here: there was absolutely no connection between my comments about appreciating Palin's amateurishness and the fact that I vote for people based on their policy positions.

You wrote:

I think what this indicates is the same quaity the made Palin attractive to some: her rank amateurishness, which some translated into genuineness. I could appreciate that about her though would never vote for the lady for any office.

So she isn't genuine but really only amateurish. You can appreciate an amateur but not vote for her. So after explaining to you how many men appreciate amateurish women you wrote further:

I vote for folks based on their policy positions by and large. I don't agree with many of her views. earl.

First you say that her amateurishness disqualifies her for office and you couldn't vote for her and in response to me, you further define this amateurishness by your disagreement with her views. You write this stuff, I don't. You are the one that connected amateurishness with policy.

You seem so concerned with saying the "right" thing, you fail to realize what you are really saying. Liberal BS can go just so far. Try being real.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Earl



Well by what you just wrote, it seems that you've bothered in order to help this poor naive soul.



You wrote:



So she isn't genuine but really only amateurish. You can appreciate an amateur but not vote for her. So after explaining to you how many men appreciate amateurish women you wrote further:


First you say that her amateurishness disqualifies her for office and you couldn't vote for her and in response to me, you further define this amateurishness by your disagreement with her views. You write this stuff, I don't. You are the one that connected amateurishness with policy.

You seem so concerned with saying the "right" thing, you fail to realize what you are really saying. Liberal BS can go just so far. Try being real.

Show me where I said being "amateurish" disqualifies someone from holding office. Show me where I said that by virtue of holding views I disagree with that makes them amateurish. What's the "right thing" I'm concerned with saying? earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Show me where I said being "amateurish" disqualifies someone from holding office. Show me where I said that by virtue of holding views I disagree with that makes them amateurish. What's the "right thing" I'm concerned with saying? earl

Earl

I think what this indicates is the same quaity the made Palin attractive to some: her rank amateurishness, which some translated into genuineness. I could appreciate that about her though would never vote for the lady for any office.

It is clear that for you, her amateurishness would not allow you to vote for her for any public office. Fortunately not everyone is this way.

Then you go on to say that you couldn't vote for her because her views are different than yours. Well if first you say her amateurishness doesn't allow you to vote for her and then you admit policy disagreements it is clear her amateurishness is associated with your disagreements. If she agreed with you she wouldn't be amateurish.

You say that Obama is an amateur compared to McCain but why not call him a rank amateur? He said we have 57 states and has never been a governor like Palin? But you agree with him.

The "right" thing is the response you believe to be the appropriate liberal response.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Earl

I think what this indicates is the same quaity the made Palin attractive to some: her rank amateurishness, which some translated into genuineness. I could appreciate that about her though would never vote for the lady for any office.

It is clear that for you, her amateurishness would not allow you to vote for her for any public office. Fortunately not everyone is this way.

Then you go on to say that you couldn't vote for her because her views are different than yours. Well if first you say her amateurishness doesn't allow you to vote for her and then you admit policy disagreements it is clear her amateurishness is associated with your disagreements. If she agreed with you she wouldn't be amateurish.

You say that Obama is an amateur compared to McCain but why not call him a rank amateur? He said we have 57 states and has never been a governor like Palin? But you agree with him.

The "right" thing is the response you believe to be the appropriate liberal response.

Show me where I said I wouldn't vote for her because she was an amateur. What's the appropriate liberal reponse you think I want and show me where you say I want it. Nick I'm going to continue to challenge your fuzzy math that always likes to add 2 + 2 to come up with 12. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Show me where I said I wouldn't vote for her because she was an amateur. What's the appropriate liberal reponse you think I want and show me where you say I want it. Nick I'm going to continue to challenge your fuzzy math that always likes to add 2 + 2 to come up with 12. earl

You wrote

I think what this indicates is the same quaity the made Palin attractive to some: her rank amateurishness, which some translated into genuineness. I could appreciate that about her though would never vote for the lady for any office.

You clearly state that it is her "rank amateurishness" that only appears as genuineness. You cannot vote for her and only later refer to policy positions.

Someone like me does not see this amateurishness but rather a person of character that appears out of place for plastic politics. I welcome this genuineness as a necessary influence for any attempt to clean up politics. All these professional politicians got us into this mess so I welcome a non professional to help us get out of it. This is not a matter of public policy positions but rather an attitude that is representative of the character that is needed to clean up the mess.

The appropriate liberal response was first to assert her amateurishness as an explanation of her appeal and when seeing that this argument has many holes, switch over to policy positions. Of course none of this explains why she is such a successful and popular governor and holds an office you would think not worthy of your vote.

All this means is that you like to say these things without thinking them through.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

You wrote



You clearly state that it is her "rank amateurishness" that only appears as genuineness. You cannot vote for her and only later refer to policy positions.

Someone like me does not see this amateurishness but rather a person of character that appears out of place for plastic politics. I welcome this genuineness as a necessary influence for any attempt to clean up politics. All these professional politicians got us into this mess so I welcome a non professional to help us get out of it. This is not a matter of public policy positions but rather an attitude that is representative of the character that is needed to clean up the mess.

The appropriate liberal response was first to assert her amateurishness as an explanation of her appeal and when seeing that this argument has many holes, switch over to policy positions. Of course none of this explains why she is such a successful and popular governor and holds an office you would think not worthy of your vote.

All this means is that you like to say these things without thinking them through.

OK, Nick, to recount what I actually said as you've quoted numerous times while drawing wholly erroneous conclusions: I said I liked her amateurish quality. I said I wouldn't vote for her due to her policy positions. That would be the factual evidence upon which you need to draw your conclusions. In fact, I didn't even fault her for being an amateur, so your reponse about "switching over" to policy reasons makes no logical sense. As to the "appropriate liberal response" being to first assert her amateurishness, I take that means you're assuming that asserting someone is an amateur is an attack. Now, again, if you're assserting I actually criticized her for being an amateur as opposed to simply making the observation she was one, please provide that evidence. I made no observations about whether she is genuine, as I have no evidence to base that conclusion upon. earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

OK, Nick, to recount what I actually said as you've quoted numerous times while drawing wholly erroneous conclusions: I said I liked her amateurish quality. I said I wouldn't vote for her due to her policy positions. That would be the factual evidence upon which you need to draw your conclusions. In fact, I didn't even fault her for being an amateur, so your reponse about "switching over" to policy reasons makes no logical sense. As to the "appropriate liberal response" being to first assert her amateurishness, I take that means you're assuming that asserting someone is an amateur is an attack. Now, again, if you're assserting I actually criticized her for being an amateur as opposed to simply making the observation she was one, please provide that evidence. I made no observations about whether she is genuine, as I have no evidence to base that conclusion upon. earl

Earl, you actually wrote:

I think what this indicates is the same quaity the made Palin attractive to some: her rank amateurishness, which some translated into genuineness. I could appreciate that about her though would never vote for the lady for any office.

You clearly state that you would not vote for her for any office. This includes dog catcher. Any office means any office. If you consider a person a rank amateur, it makes sense to say that. Then in a later post you change it to policy positions.

All I am suggesting is rather then worrying about the "right" thing to say, just be real. You said what you meant. IYO she is too amateurish for public office. I disagree. There is no sense in trying to find the PC way we disagree. I see her as genuine and you see her as amateurish. Fair enough.

[earl]

Originally Posted by Nick_A

Earl, you actually wrote:


You clearly state that you would not vote for her for any office. This includes dog catcher. Any office means any office. If you consider a person a rank amateur, it makes sense to say that. Then in a later post you change it to policy positions.

All I am suggesting is rather then worrying about the "right" thing to say, just be real. You said what you meant. IYO she is too amateurish for public office. I disagree. There is no sense in trying to find the PC way we disagree. I see her as genuine and you see her as amateurish. Fair enough.

Again, Nick, nowhere will you find me saying her "amateurishness" disqualified her from holding an office. But, I'm tiring of pointing out your fallacies. So, tell you what: if you exercise more caution in not ascribing to me thingsI never said, we'll let it go. Othwerwise, depending on how egregious you are in the future, we may have another go at this. I simply got tired of how much & how badly you've done this to me in the past. metta, earl

[Nick_A]

Originally Posted by earl

Again, Nick, nowhere will you find me saying her "amateurishness" disqualified her from holding an office. But, I'm tiring of pointing out your fallacies. So, tell you what: if you exercise more caution in not ascribing to me thingsI never said, we'll let it go. Othwerwise, depending on how egregious you are in the future, we may have another go at this. I simply got tired of how much & how badly you've done this to me in the past. metta, earl

It does disqualify her in YOUR eyes and that what this is about.

It is an awesome burden being a liberal. You are condemned to pointing out the fallacies of an ungrateful public. I feel your pain. It must be truly tedious with someone like me.

Why not just admitting when you screw up rather than insisting on some PC runaround? We all screw up. It does take courage to admit it and in liberalism where image means everything, such courage isn't the norm.