2010-3-15 10:24:00
JJ:
These Lefties' dogmatic mean spirited attacks on Palin and other conservatives is getting extremely repetitious and boring. All they do is insult the intelligence of those with whom they disagree and rarely even cite any reasoning for that supposed lack of intelligence.
I wonder why.
Could it be a lack of intelligence?
"TWall" wrote:
"I believe one of them did, citing the use of hand notes on TOPICS to cover rather than specific details. She couldn't remember three simple topics? At least she was two for three on them, successfully nailing energy and lift America's spirits but failing on budget cuts which she crossed out and wrote tax cuts."
JJ:
When I heard about Palin writing notes on her hand as all the notes she needed for a major address I thought that was so superior to reading other people's words on a teleprompter that the Left would be too embarrassed at the comparison to say anything. Man, was I wrong.
Since when is it a sign of lack of intelligence to be able to give an entire speech from a half dozen words but a sign of intelligence to read one word for word as Obama does? Only a dogmatic Lefty could see through such upside-down Orwellian eyes to come to such a conclusion.
I rarely use notes when I give a speech, but when I do I use the same method that Palin does but instead of my hand, I write a couple words on a 3x5 card.
Let us say that one of the words is "freedom" as the last word. No experienced non-teleprompter speaker who can speak without notes will ask why that is there. It is there for a number of intelligent reasons.
Anyone who attends lectures knows that most speakers, when they are not reading a script, can easily get sidetracked on a subject they find interesting and run out of time. This causes them to either forget or run out of time to cover the most important subjects. Therefore, it is helpful to look at the half dozen words you have before you to remind you of all the material you have to cover and the order of the presentation you had in mind.
Obviously the critics here either lack experience in public speaking or just bore the audience to death with a written script.
"TimT" wrote:
"'Socialist.' Its hypocritical. Reminds me of the photo of the tea-bagger with a sign 'Get A Brain Morans' LOL indeed. No one is scared or hating Ms Palin. However, Ms Palin has richly demonstrated her lack of intellect and political knowledge and ability. Ms Palin is a political buffoon who has...."
JJ:
It is a sad commentary on the media that 47 researchers had to spend 1044 hours pouring over 245,855 signs to find one misspelled word. (A little humor applied with the guessed numbers.)
"Cherenkov":
"Apparently the only guy in America who hasn't seen a Palin interview. Even Glenn Beck embarrassed her with a question about the founding fathers."
JJ:
You must not have watched the interview. There was nothing embarrassing. You need to watch the actual show rather than reading about it on the Huffington post.
"Cherenkov":
"Again you don't know what you are actually talking about. When giving her speech, she stood at a lectern and read it. The hand notes were used for a sit down interview afterward."
JJ:
That doesn't make sense. Why would she have reminder notes when the interviewer controls the topics? I'll have to check this out.
"GrayMatter":
"Just because there are words on a teleprompter does not mean they are not Obama's words. That's a leap."
JJ:
A leap? Not Hardly when he has four speech writers working full time. Their names are: Adam Frankel, Sarah Hurwitz, Ben Rhodes and Jon Favreau. Favreau alone makes $172,000 so every time Obama speaks his own words taxpayers are not getting their money's worth.
"Badnana" wrote:
"I know you would be aghast, but presidents do have speech writers. (in fact, one of Bush's just got a gig with the Washington Post). There weren't any at the Republican retreat, though. Why do you disparage Obama for doing things that other presidents have done routinely? Are you trying to find fault where there is none?"
JJ:
Do you read the material you respond to? I am not criticizing Obama for having a speech writer. Of course all presidents have them, but Obama is the first to use a teleprompter in every possible situation, even when talking to school kids.
And my intent wasn't to criticize Obama, but to defend Sarah against the hypocritical attacks. Why would it be okay for Obama to use a teleprompter in every conceivable situation where he reads the words of others and wrong for Sarah to have a couple words as reminders and then speak in her own words?
Does not compute unless you factor in extreme Lefty bias.
"Cherenkov":
"You do that, and get back to me with your corrections."
JJ:
I figured you presented a distorted picture. It didn't make sense Sarah would need a note with the single word "taxes," for instance, if she is asked a question on taxes.
I did a little research and the truth is much different. She had the notes written on her hand before the speech to aid her with the speech, not the interview. She obviously looked at her notes during the interview to see if there was anything there she needed to add to a particular answer.
This attacking Sarah and giving Obama a pass could be likened unto an unfair teacher giving a student an "F" for including a couple quotes in his term paper and another an "A" for copying the whole thing off the Internet.
"GrayMatter":
"There is still no way for you to know which words are a presidents or the speech writers.
"At least not usually.
"I'm certain Bush's gaffes were not loaded by writers, but were his own flair.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/24/teleprompter-
vs-no-telepr_n_178474.html
JJ:
When Bush spoke with a teleprompter he sounded as good as Obama and made no mistakes. Bush at least had the courage to often speak without the use of one. Even with a teleprompter Obama makes some doosies -- like pronouncing the word "corpsmen" as "corpse men" instead of "core men."
"OneEye" wrote:
"When the Vatican convicted Galileo it was largely due to the fact that they were too entrenched in their world view to accept evidence of other possibilities. When I read these bumper sticker responses to legitimate social concerns I can only hope that the next Renaissance is around the corner, because the medieval response to progress and civility is so disappointing. Are these inane ideas an attempt to prove their is no evolution? Your lizard brains don't disprove the whole...."
JJ:
Yeah, I get frustrated with those medieval thinking Lefties also. They are kind of like modern Luddites.
"Badnana," trying to illustrate the stupidity of the Tea Party people by quoting their signs, wrote:
"'He's A Muslin' was one. 'No Pubic Option' was another. 'Tea Bag Them Before They Tea Bag Us' (no spelling errors, but surely you see the humor here) and, no, the guy holding the sign 'Get A Brain, Morans" clearly wasn't joking."
JJ:
So your 47 researchers found one more spelling error. I don't know how many times I've seen Lefties that cannot even pronounce Rush Limbaugh's name -- and they were not trying to be funny. Have your researchers check to see how often the Left spells Glenn Beck as Glen Beck.
"Badnana"
"Again, love the 'Lefty' handle! Sarah wouldn't have been a target for her 'hand-prompter' if she had not been throwing stones about the teleprompter. Hypocrite much? Still no response from you on Obama's unscripted meeting at the republican retreat. That was awesome! Did you watch it?"
JJ:
How could she be a hypocrite when she does not rely on a teleprompter for every speech? Obama bores me so I didn't watch his interplay with Republicans. As usual the left thinks he did good and the Right -- not so good. If you have a link I'll force myself to take a look.
"Wrpspeed"
"As a past resident of the state can someone please enlighten me as to when the infectious mental disorder known as liberalism infected the countryside? As a resident of the Socialist Republic of California I can recognize a flaming Liberal from a mile away. Sorry, should I have said Progressive?"
JJ:
I think that the virus has just infected this blog area so far. Talk to ordinary people and they are of a lot different consciousness than this bunch.
"CameraFan"
"I did watch the actual show Joe and she did embarrass herself and Glen looked uncomfortable as well."
JJ:
You misspelled Glenn.
"CameraFan":
"He did not use a teleprompter when speaking to school kids. Stop listening to chain emails and actually research."
JJ:
He used it in the actual classroom, but apparently he couldn't use it to actually answer the kids questions.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/24/obama_uses_
teleprompters_during_speech_at_elementary_school.html
Quoting JJ, "CameraFan" first wrote:
"'You misspelled Glenn."
"CameraFan" then replied with:
"Woooooooooo! You got me there Jo. Good job. If it were sincere I would more than likely thank you but it wasn't."
JJ:
Like the Lefties here are sincere in their nit picky microscopic criticisms of the rising star -- Sarah Palin. Maybe they are really terminators from the future and think her name is Sarah Conner.
"InterestedObserver":
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/school-photo/"The teleprompter was used when he was talking to the press, not to the kids. It helps when you use real sources and not believe the first thing you hear just because it helps back your dislike for a person."
JJ:
But how much class is that to have teleprompters right in the classroom?
"Cherenkov" wrote:
"You still haven't watched the event, have you? Here's the deal -- one of the Q & A questions was: What are some of the things you would do if you found yourself president? (paraphrasing there) She (Palin) obviously either anticipated the question, or knew in advance and had listed a couple things in her hand. As I said before, no big deal."
JJ:
I'm glad we agree. That was the core of the point I was making that this is no big deal. So why are you and every Lefty in the universe trying to make such a big deal out of it? I checked out more of her speech and it does look like she used some notes and may have used her palm in her speech and for the interview as you say. This act shouldn't even be significant enough to be a topic of conversation. Almost all politicians use notes, a teleprompter or word by word prepared script and no one complains. Now Sarah has three points on her palm the world is coming to an end -- she is the antichrist!
Silly, isn't it?
"CameraFan" wrote:
"Joe. What the he** is the matter with you? You are sounding like a whiney little boy. 'You misspelled Glenn.' Waaaa. Why are you making such a deal about that? It's okay. Everything will be alright. I didn't intend to misspell Glen's name. It was a typo. Get over it. Geez!"
JJ:
It should have been obvious why I corrected you for misspelling Glenn's name. I only did it because you guys were criticizing the Tea Party people as being stupid for misspellings on their signs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
"Badnana" wrote:
"You call Obama on the carpet for class, Joe? And when doing so, you want to defend Sarah? Really?
"The lady from Alaska is a phony. She has sold out for money, quitting office so that she could cash in. She was neither a threat (the Left) nor an opportunity (the Right), but just a fantasy...."
JJ:
If Sarah is a phony, then Biden and Obama do not even exist.
"Badnana":
"By her own admonition of teleprompters, it becomes a big deal. You yourself poke at Obama about teleprompters, yet balk at anyone castigating Sarah for hand-prompter. You cant have it both ways. Oh wait, you are GOP so you can.
"Hypocrite."
JJ:
Are you saying that writing three things on your hand gives you the same memory advantage as 100 percent of the speech word by word on a teleprompter? Sounds like it....
And that makes you a piece of work.
"Cherenkov":
"Joseph, I'm not making a big deal out of Sarah's hand notes. I'm making a big deal out of your pretending you saw the speech and claiming (at 11:27:50 AM) she made this major speech from just six words written on her hand. She didn't. You were just guessing, and you were wrong."
JJ:
I'm not pretending anything. I saw clips of her speech and didn't see any signs of notes and figured she must have given it from her hand notes as some press reported. I didn't have all the information. Now I do and the conflict is still over this small point that Sarah had notes on her hand.
Big deal.
JJ:
Steve Corn makes a good point about the Haiti incident. When the missionaries were arrested there were hundreds, perhaps thousands dying daily and many thousands starving and homeless.
How many lives could have been saved if our government had taken some type of action and made a deal to get them out of their situation or arrange a work release program where they could assist the homeless and suffering? Anything to keep the attention on the big problem would have been helpful.
How many lives could have been saved? I would guess it would number into many thousands.
JJ:
I set the sorter on "most recommended" and read through the first 30 or so posts. I didn't find one that even had compassion for the eight that were found innocent enough to be released by a judge. Most sounded like hard boiled atheists who mocked believers or God himself. Most sounded like they hate believers or anyone that says anything good about believers. They are definitely intolerant of those with beliefs different than themselves.
When you look at the recommendations you see that the haters garner from about a dozen to 46 recommends each whereas anyone giving a little compassion is lucky to get a recommend or two. It appears that at least 90 percent of Statesman readers are either atheists or dislike believers.
I find this curious since (according to the Harris Poll) around 90 percent of Americans believe in God and 80 percent believe in the resurrection of Christ.
It appears that the Statesman is heavily drawing from a pool of about 10 percent of non believers and has scared away the believers.
JJ:
Oh, no! Laura is smiling again. That means she is trying to stay positive and hasn't rolled over and given up on life, God and her fellow men. The condemners here will be so disappointed.
But, if you think that bothers this bunch imagine how they'll feel when and if she is found innocent and released.
They'll buzz around like Tasmanian devils. Their hands will tremble so much they'll be unable to type.
JJ:
The trouble with most of the reactionaries here is they are judging from the most negative aspects of their imaginations, using points of bias rather than making comments based in reality or the facts.
Here is what we know about the two remaining missionaries in Haiti with reasonable certainty.
The problem here is most of this bunch have convicted Laura of being guilty of 3 & 4 [above] with no trial. If they were in the seat of the Haiti judge they would cease any further investigation and just throw away the key and let these two rot in jail where they are judged to belong for the rest of their lives.
It is fortunate that even a third world judge in one of the most corrupt nations on earth has a greater sense of justice than most of the attackers here.
To justify mindless attack because these are Christians who are with flaws is silly and mean spirited. All people of all religions as well as non believers have flaws. It is not a crime to be selfish or even a hypocrite. Laura should not be judged by us as being guilty of kidnapping or child trafficking until it has been reasonably proven in court.
It is interesting that many are still convicting the eight released as guilty of such things even though they have been judged harmless enough to be released.
"Saigon":
"You're way off base, Joseph: The released were not found 'innocent,' charges are still present."
JJ:
You're distorting what I said as usual. I said they were found "innocent enough" to be released. That is an absolute fact.
"Spork":
"Okay, so the majority of Americans are superstitious, what does that prove? It proves that the majority of Americans are superstitious."
JJ:
I believe in God but am not as superstitious as you appear to be. You seem to be more afraid of Christians than kids are of the bogeyman.
"Spork":
"I wish more preferred science to mysticism, our country would be much stronger in every way if they did."
JJ:
I believe in God and am more accepting of scientific fact than any atheist I know. Your accusation is biased.
"EXMO":
"Why is it that WE can't help without pushing our ideals and religion on others? Haiti needs food, clothing, water and medical supplies. Most are Catholics and practice Voodoo. Who are we to push your/mine/their religion with the handout that is given?"
JJ:
Who cares why people are helping when other's lives are at stake? Those who help for any reason are 100 points above the bunch here that just stand back, attack the motives and point fingers of blame toward those who do assist.
"Poobah" wrote:
"These 10 people did not help anyone but were a detriment to those who are doing all they can by making a huge distraction. We care because their greed and selfishness and their lack of concern for the people of Haiti who are suffering has helped nothing but the chaos."
JJ:
And you know the motive of all the ten was "greed and selfishness and their lack of concern" because? Who are you, God?
"Poobah":
"I know this by their actions. Disregard for the law...."
JJ:
There is some evidence of this for Silsby but you're only guessing on the others.
"Poobah":
"Disregard for family values."
JJ:
Since when is seeking to feed a hungry child disregarding family values?
"Poobah":
"And disregard for the country of Haiti."
JJ:
Since when is going to assist after a great destruction disregarding Haiti?
"Poobah":
"Compare these folks to Tim McFarlane and his crew, which are there now, as missionaries. What do you hear about them? Nothing, eh? Because they went there to help, not profit."
JJ:
It appears that at least 8 of the missionaries went there purely to help and did not seek the publicity they received.
Right or wrong someone's probably going to get a book deal out of this and this will infuriate the critics. Then we'll have a thousand posts on the Statesman's review of the book.
"StraightTalk":
"Joseph, get your facts straight, the 8 have not been exonerated; they have been released; their court files have not been closed."
JJ:
Okay, exonerated enough to be released. It is doubtful they will go back to prison.
"StraightTalk":
"Joseph, is it Christian to lie, misuse and misled others. You are condoning her actions by excusing them as being human faults."
JJ:
I'm not condoning her actions. That's crazy talk.
"My2CentsWorth":
"See what I mean? Just pure entertainment!"
JJ:
You are just jealous because you're not even entertaining.
Some of the judgments of Laura have no more evidence that the birthers have against Obama. If you are against the unjust judgment of one you should be on the other also.
The smell of extreme bias fills the air.
"RedDog":
"No not bias ------- hypocrisy."
JJ:
You judge yourself harshly for a Lefty.
"RedDog":
"I put your 'quote' on my desktop. I wonder how many times a day I will get to watch you try to 'talk' your way out of it?"
JJ:
Never, but I'm flattered you put my words on your desktop.
"RedDog":
"If it's cloaked in religion then it's OK -- everything connected to Obama is SOCIALISM -- ya , this is going to be fun."
JJ:
I didn't say anything about socialism, but even honest Lefties admit he is leading us toward the European brand of this.
"RedDog":
"'Straighttalk' laid out A BUNCH of facts -- you of course ducked all of them."
JJ:
And these facts were where? In your imagination?
"RedDog":
"'Joseph732' = You are a hypocrite."
JJ:
You = "The trouble with most of the reactionaries here is they are judging from the most negative aspects of their imaginations, using points of bias rather than making comments based in reality or the facts."
"StraightTalk":
"And, Joseph, you cannot dispute the facts without bringing in unsubstantiated allegations which have no bearing on this. You change the subject to divert your inability to discount and accept the fact that the facts speak for themselves. The mighty power has one-upped you!"
JJ:
I have no idea what you are talking about. What are these facts I do not accept?
"StraightTalk":
"Joseph, now go read the AP article on its investigation into the 33 children. None of them are orphans."
JJ:
Why are you telling me this? I never said they were orphans.
"Poobah":
"The facts that you choose to ignore because they do not serve you but rather show your position to be lame. Can you say hypocrisy...."
JJ:
More mindless name calling without producing any reason for it. There must be some reason you attack me. Do you just not like me? Speak.. Give me a reason I am a hypocrite.
What's that I hear?
Silence... Followed by confused babbling.
Quoting JJ, "Spork" wrote:
"'Give me a reason I am a hypocrite.'
"Spork" then wrote:
"Joseph, you claim to be a man of God, and yet you attack and disparage anyone (including me) who disagrees with you. Have a look at 1 Peter 3:9 and answer your own question. It is a simple thing, reading the Word...."
JJ:
Where'd this man of God thing come from? I make no such claim. As far as I Peter 3:9, I'm not the one calling people names such as hypocrites here. I merely give information on my point of view. It's your problem if you can't handle some diversity on this forum.
"AlDentePickles":
"Disregard for family values is when you take children away from their families under dubious circumstances. You can feed a hungry child without taking them away. You can sing Kumbaya all you want, but this group has only done harm."
JJ:
Yeah, like you were there and know the circumstances. There was little food or lodging there. Who's to say they weren't doing the best thing to save the lives of children? We won't know all the facts till they come out on Oprah.
"WebFoot":
"Relax. Joseph is intellectually dishonest and can't fathom progressive statements or valid reasoning.
"If it helps, 95% of people reading these posts know where you're coming from and likely 90% agree with you."
JJ:
That might make sense if you could supply anything I have said that was dishonest, untrue or is unreasonable, but you can't. Your life must really be depressing to attack so without any grounds for attack.
"Poobah":
"The reason that I know that these folks did not act in the best interests of the needy is by the fruits of their labors, duh!"
JJ:
Where's the bad fruit? Last I saw they were rejoicing because they think God delivered them. If you believe the bad fruit thing you must reject Obama's health care program since it has caused such turbulence and division in the country and elected Scott Brown. Wait.. Maybe he's good fruit.
"Poobah":
"The more that I read the postings of the Joseph, the more I begin to see him as one who posits himself as a religious Righty only to prove the irrationality of that position."
JJ:
I'm not religious and do not attend church. I just stand up for what is fair. Apparently fairness is seen as crazy talk here.
"StraightTalk":
"By the way, has anyone noticed that 'Rancher's' comments have all been pulled. Someone stated on another thread he had been barred. Do they pull comments when they bar someone?"
JJ:
I'm starting to feel like a lone survivor of the Right on this forum. A lot of Lefties have called me disparaging names and are still here. I am more careful than most to make sure I obey the rules here so hopefully in this most conservative state that one vocal person from the Right can remain on the forum here.
All ten missionaries said they had faith in God that they would be delivered and now it looks like this is going to be the reality. Who says this isn't the case that their faith is justified?
Oh, yeah, forgot -- 90 percent of the posters here mocked them, judged them guilty and wanted them to rot in prison for life. This bunch must be as angry as a Tasmanian Devil that they are judged innocent, as I earlier predicted.
Sure this bunch made mistakes, most of them innocent, but who hasn't? "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.' It appears that a lot of people in Boise think they are sinless.
All my posts were removed today and I called no one names and never broke any rules. I guess the accusers here ganged up and protested free speech to the Statesman. They just can't handle the fact that the judge found eight missionaries innocent of wrong doing.
But what really bugs them is that Silsby is still smiling. Keep smiling Silsby. Your smile is like water on a vampire.
"OhMyGosh" wrote:
"At the least, the curious case of Laura Silsby raises questions about cultural imperialism: what makes a scofflaw from nearly all-white Idaho with no experience in adoption or rescue services think she has a right to bring religion and relief to a country with its own cultural, racial and spiritual heritage?"
JJ:
Why do Lefties want to bring race into everything? Why is it always on your minds?
Sounds like that you think that because Haiti has its own heritage we should just let the children starve, remain homeless and suffer from the spreading disease due to the disaster.
Strange belief system.
I'll take trickle down economics any time over the Left's version of trickle up -- or maybe I should say stream up.
Richard Connor is on the right track with his ideas on prevention. I may word his ideas a little differently but he is one of the few to think this constructively. As they say "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." in addition it could cut out medical expenses in half.
Quoting another poster, Bob Kearney first wrote:
"'Uninsured hospitalized children are still 60 percent more likely to die than insured hospitalized children.'"
Bob Kearney then wrote, saying:
"Aren't uninsured children already covered under Medicaid? If so this doesn't say much for government assisted insurance."
To the above "TimT" responded with:
"So typical; pass laws to gut government programs and then complain that government programs don't work.
"Yep. STARVE THE BEAST."
JJ:
The Beast always feels starved no matter how much you feed it.
Responding to JJ, "Blarney" wrote:
"There are plenty of uninsured children who don't qualify because their parents make too much money, often by just a couple hundred dollars."
JJ:
So people who make too much money and have kids that don't qualify are dying through lack of insurance. Yet Kearney says it is the poor who are dying. This doesn't make sense because the poor kids are covered by Medicaid and if it is the poor are dying then this tells us that the government one-payer plan is not working.
In addition Wikipedia says:
"A child may be covered under Medicaid if she or he is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident. A child may be eligible for Medicaid regardless of the eligibility status of his or her parents or guardians."
Thus, a child can be covered by Medicaid based on his or her individual status even if his or her parents are not eligible.
So, where are the poor kids that are not covered?
Anyone...? Anyone...?
In response to another post, JJ wrote:
Party of "no clue." Terrific! If the Republicans had the media on their side the way the Democrats do then this would be in the press much more than the party of no. It is more creative, catchy and accurate.
In response to yet another post, JJ wrote:
If Silsby's getting released the I guess the judge has determined that she is not nearly as guilty of wrong doing as most of the bunch here has judged her to be -- and with extreme bias I might add.
"AmosMoses":
"Media on their side? First you guys say no one is paying attention to the liberal media anymore; that everyone is glued to Fox news. Now it's the opposite."
JJ:
Anyone who thinks the liberal media through TV, print, movies, is dominating the Internet, and everywhere, but Talk Radio and Fox News hasn't been a major factor in influencing public opinion, is blowing smoke. Fox News is dominant on cable but the major three still have many times more viewers.
"Zim":
"Look up the Supreme Court Case case Schenck versus United Stats 1919 and later Brandenburg versus Ohio. Pay particular attention to the phrasing falsely, dangerously and riot. Then think about the political theater and all the intentional false assertions that cause great harm to the population."
JJ:
There's no excuse to infringe on the First Amendment. As soon as you do ten less truth gets out not more as you seem to think. If someone lies then there is freedom to counteract the lie as long as there is freedom as specified in the Constitution.
It's amazing that there are still people who are impressed with Obama's intelligence. How smart is the guy who has already borrowed more than he can repay to take out a bunch more credit cards and then spend like crazy in an effort to stimulate his family's economy? We'd all call him dumb, but we call Obama smart.
Strange indeed.
"Poobah":
"Well, you regularly claim superior intelligence here on these discussions. What shall we call you? By the way, Obama is an intelligent person, so was Clinton and to refute intelligence in folks like these merely makes you look not so yourself."
JJ:
The only one proclaiming my superior intelligence is you. An unlikely source, I admit. Nevertheless, thanks for the acknowledgement.
Copyright © 2010 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved