Oh was this where she was "accidentally right", like they are trying to say in order to save dignity? She was more right than then those that called her names for being wrong.Kmar wrote:
Not quite. She was not entirely right. I explained this earlier.lowing wrote:
and yet, as it turns out everyone else was the "dumb ass". lolKmar wrote:
She called the Paul Revere question a "gotcha type question" when all they did was ask her;13rin wrote:
I don't think she's any longer the victim of a leftist media, but she was during the last Presidential election. No other candidate received the amount of scrutiny as she did.Reporter wrote:
"What have you seen so far today, and what are you gonna take away from your visit?"
lol
She went to 5 colleges in 6 years for a BA. I personally don't think she is particularly smart.lowing wrote:
Now that is a valid argument, calling her a "retard" or "lacks critical thinking", for the dumb fuck reasons listed, is not. But then again, she has not indicated she is seeking any appointments has she?Kmar wrote:
That's the problem. We have enough self serving politicians in Washington. When you're elected to an office you are obliged to serve the people who put you there. With the precedent of laying down and quitting why would anyone support her again?lowing wrote:
She resigned, she has more publicity and more money now than ever before, sounds like sound thinking to me. You may not like WHY she did it, but it sure as fuck looks as if she knew EXACTLY what she was doing and it is undeniable it is paying off for her
There is however an unhealthy hatred that people display when talking about her. I've said my biggest problems with her are the quitting her office, and the complaining about the media she so often invites in. That's kind of the same victim mentality you claim to not like when people accuse opponents of Obama as being racist. Really, if she had some great answer to our problems I'd still vote for her. But I don't see that neither.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Do people really hate her? I think she's really not smart enough to be in politics but I hardly dislike the woman, she seems to be a nice person and a bit of a milf to boot.Kmar wrote:
She went to 5 colleges in 6 years for a BA. I personally don't think she is particularly smart.lowing wrote:
Now that is a valid argument, calling her a "retard" or "lacks critical thinking", for the dumb fuck reasons listed, is not. But then again, she has not indicated she is seeking any appointments has she?Kmar wrote:
That's the problem. We have enough self serving politicians in Washington. When you're elected to an office you are obliged to serve the people who put you there. With the precedent of laying down and quitting why would anyone support her again?
There is however an unhealthy hatred that people display when talking about her. I've said my biggest problems with her are the quitting her office, and the complaining about the media she so often invites in. That's kind of the same victim mentality you claim to not like when people accuse opponents of Obama as being racist. Really, if she had some great answer to our problems I'd still vote for her. But I don't see that neither.
She misrepresented the circumstance. Yes, Revere did warn the British once he was captured, at gun point. He was actually boasting about the colonial capability. Warning them really wasn't his intent. She was directly wrong when talking about firing shots. And certainly Revere didn’t warn anyone that the British were out to take anyone's arms.lowing wrote:
Oh was this where she was "accidentally right", like they are trying to say in order to save dignity? She was more right than then those that called her names for being wrong.Kmar wrote:
Not quite. She was not entirely right. I explained this earlier.lowing wrote:
and yet, as it turns out everyone else was the "dumb ass". lol
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes people do. It's pretty apparent to be honest. Like most things I find the truth to be somewhere in the middle. She isn't totally undeserving of the criticism she receives. .. and Left wingers also shouldn't be salivating in anticipation every-time her name comes up.Jaekus wrote:
Do people really hate her? I think she's really not smart enough to be in politics but I hardly dislike the woman, she seems to be a nice person and a bit of a milf to boot.Kmar wrote:
She went to 5 colleges in 6 years for a BA. I personally don't think she is particularly smart.lowing wrote:
Now that is a valid argument, calling her a "retard" or "lacks critical thinking", for the dumb fuck reasons listed, is not. But then again, she has not indicated she is seeking any appointments has she?
There is however an unhealthy hatred that people display when talking about her. I've said my biggest problems with her are the quitting her office, and the complaining about the media she so often invites in. That's kind of the same victim mentality you claim to not like when people accuse opponents of Obama as being racist. Really, if she had some great answer to our problems I'd still vote for her. But I don't see that neither.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I guess you gotta forgive her for not having Columbia and Harvard laid at her feet. Maybe you should figure out WHY she bounced around before you condemn her for bouncing around. If you wanna dislike her for quitting fine, or playing the media like a fiddle that is ok as well, still does not mean she doesn't know what she is doing and isn't smart enough for politics. In fact they way she leads the media by the nose, seems to suggest she is a great politician, doesn't it?Kmar wrote:
She went to 5 colleges in 6 years for a BA. I personally don't think she is particularly smart.lowing wrote:
Now that is a valid argument, calling her a "retard" or "lacks critical thinking", for the dumb fuck reasons listed, is not. But then again, she has not indicated she is seeking any appointments has she?Kmar wrote:
That's the problem. We have enough self serving politicians in Washington. When you're elected to an office you are obliged to serve the people who put you there. With the precedent of laying down and quitting why would anyone support her again?
There is however an unhealthy hatred that people display when talking about her. I've said my biggest problems with her are the quitting her office, and the complaining about the media she so often invites in. That's kind of the same victim mentality you claim to not like when people accuse opponents of Obama as being racist. Really, if she had some great answer to our problems I'd still vote for her. But I don't see that neither.
but that wasn't a "gaff", like "57 states plus Alaska and Hawaii"? That was "retardation" and a "lack of critical thinking". See where I am goin' with this?Kmar wrote:
She misrepresented the circumstance. Yes, Revere did warn the British once he was captured, at gun point. He was actually boasting about the colonial capability. Warning them really wasn't his intent. She was directly wrong when talking about firing shots. And certainly Revere didn’t warn anyone that the British were out to take anyone's arms.lowing wrote:
Oh was this where she was "accidentally right", like they are trying to say in order to save dignity? She was more right than then those that called her names for being wrong.Kmar wrote:
Not quite. She was not entirely right. I explained this earlier.
Can't you defend her without talking about Obama? That's the second time you've had to resort to that with me in this thread.lowing wrote:
I guess you gotta forgive her for not having Columbia and Harvard laid at her feet. Maybe you should figure out WHY she bounced around before you condemn her for bouncing around. If you wanna dislike her for quitting fine, or playing the media like a fiddle that is ok as well, still does not mean she doesn't know what she is doing and isn't smart enough for politics. In fact they way she leads the media by the nose, seems to suggest she is a great politician, doesn't it?Kmar wrote:
She went to 5 colleges in 6 years for a BA. I personally don't think she is particularly smart.lowing wrote:
Now that is a valid argument, calling her a "retard" or "lacks critical thinking", for the dumb fuck reasons listed, is not. But then again, she has not indicated she is seeking any appointments has she?
There is however an unhealthy hatred that people display when talking about her. I've said my biggest problems with her are the quitting her office, and the complaining about the media she so often invites in. That's kind of the same victim mentality you claim to not like when people accuse opponents of Obama as being racist. Really, if she had some great answer to our problems I'd still vote for her. But I don't see that neither.
Don't presume to think I do not know why she dropped out. But really six undergrad colleges? C'mon man.
The media follows her around mostly because people think she is a train wreck. I suppose by that logic Charlie Sheen could be in the running as well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No.lowing wrote:
I guess you gotta forgive her for not having Columbia and Harvard laid at her feet. Maybe you should figure out WHY she bounced around before you condemn her for bouncing around. If you wanna dislike her for quitting fine, or playing the media like a fiddle that is ok as well, still does not mean she doesn't know what she is doing and isn't smart enough for politics. In fact they way she leads the media by the nose, seems to suggest she is a great politician, doesn't it?Kmar wrote:
She went to 5 colleges in 6 years for a BA. I personally don't think she is particularly smart.lowing wrote:
Now that is a valid argument, calling her a "retard" or "lacks critical thinking", for the dumb fuck reasons listed, is not. But then again, she has not indicated she is seeking any appointments has she?
There is however an unhealthy hatred that people display when talking about her. I've said my biggest problems with her are the quitting her office, and the complaining about the media she so often invites in. That's kind of the same victim mentality you claim to not like when people accuse opponents of Obama as being racist. Really, if she had some great answer to our problems I'd still vote for her. But I don't see that neither.
You see, if it were Palin with the Harvard degree and Obama who had been in college 6 times he'd be singing a different tune. Never an objective argument from this one.Kmar wrote:
Can't you defend her without talking about Obama? That's the second time you've had to resort to that with me in this thread.lowing wrote:
I guess you gotta forgive her for not having Columbia and Harvard laid at her feet. Maybe you should figure out WHY she bounced around before you condemn her for bouncing around. If you wanna dislike her for quitting fine, or playing the media like a fiddle that is ok as well, still does not mean she doesn't know what she is doing and isn't smart enough for politics. In fact they way she leads the media by the nose, seems to suggest she is a great politician, doesn't it?Kmar wrote:
She went to 5 colleges in 6 years for a BA. I personally don't think she is particularly smart.
There is however an unhealthy hatred that people display when talking about her. I've said my biggest problems with her are the quitting her office, and the complaining about the media she so often invites in. That's kind of the same victim mentality you claim to not like when people accuse opponents of Obama as being racist. Really, if she had some great answer to our problems I'd still vote for her. But I don't see that neither.
Don't presume to think I do not know why she dropped out. But really six undergrad colleges? C'mon man.
The media follows her around mostly because people think she is a train wreck. I suppose by that logic Charlie Sheen could be in the running as well.
Also, he's been doing the Palin/Obama thing the whole thread, and even telling people who haven't brought up what they think. That's pretty lame tbh.
Last edited by Jaekus (2011-06-21 22:25:19)
Again, if you believe I think Barry O is something great you're far from the truth.lowing wrote:
but that wasn't a "gaff", like "57 states plus Alaska and Hawaii"? That was "retardation" and a "lack of critical thinking". See where I am goin' with this?Kmar wrote:
She misrepresented the circumstance. Yes, Revere did warn the British once he was captured, at gun point. He was actually boasting about the colonial capability. Warning them really wasn't his intent. She was directly wrong when talking about firing shots. And certainly Revere didn’t warn anyone that the British were out to take anyone's arms.lowing wrote:
Oh was this where she was "accidentally right", like they are trying to say in order to save dignity? She was more right than then those that called her names for being wrong.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No not really, since the inconsistency in the criticism is at the very heart of my point. there is no shortage of people that base their judgments on the person and not the opinion. It is ridiculous and inconsistent and as such removes all creditability for what you say you believe in.Kmar wrote:
Can't you defend her without talking about Obama? That's the second time you've had to resort to that with me in this thread.lowing wrote:
I guess you gotta forgive her for not having Columbia and Harvard laid at her feet. Maybe you should figure out WHY she bounced around before you condemn her for bouncing around. If you wanna dislike her for quitting fine, or playing the media like a fiddle that is ok as well, still does not mean she doesn't know what she is doing and isn't smart enough for politics. In fact they way she leads the media by the nose, seems to suggest she is a great politician, doesn't it?Kmar wrote:
She went to 5 colleges in 6 years for a BA. I personally don't think she is particularly smart.
There is however an unhealthy hatred that people display when talking about her. I've said my biggest problems with her are the quitting her office, and the complaining about the media she so often invites in. That's kind of the same victim mentality you claim to not like when people accuse opponents of Obama as being racist. Really, if she had some great answer to our problems I'd still vote for her. But I don't see that neither.
Don't presume to think I do not know why she dropped out. But really six undergrad colleges? C'mon man.
The media follows her around mostly because people think she is a train wreck. I suppose by that logic Charlie Sheen could be in the running as well.
Well then, why did she bounce around?
Now she is a train wreck? Really? How so? I see her as being more popular and powerful and gaining speed every day, while Sheen falls into the abyss. She is not a train wreck. In fact to suggest that is just another example of haters hating.
the criticism os the reason why you defend her? you are a worthless American. worthless.
Tu Stultus Es
Sorry, unlike you, if Palin was in Obamas place and did the exact same things, regarding her "transparency" I would be addressing it in the negative as well. My judgements are based on other's opinions and not whose opinion it was.Jaekus wrote:
You see, if it were Palin with the Harvard degree and Obama who had been in college 6 times he'd be singing a different tune. Never an objective argument from this one.Kmar wrote:
Can't you defend her without talking about Obama? That's the second time you've had to resort to that with me in this thread.lowing wrote:
I guess you gotta forgive her for not having Columbia and Harvard laid at her feet. Maybe you should figure out WHY she bounced around before you condemn her for bouncing around. If you wanna dislike her for quitting fine, or playing the media like a fiddle that is ok as well, still does not mean she doesn't know what she is doing and isn't smart enough for politics. In fact they way she leads the media by the nose, seems to suggest she is a great politician, doesn't it?
Don't presume to think I do not know why she dropped out. But really six undergrad colleges? C'mon man.
The media follows her around mostly because people think she is a train wreck. I suppose by that logic Charlie Sheen could be in the running as well.
Also, he's been doing the Palin/Obama thing the whole thread, and even telling people who haven't brought up what they think. That's pretty lame tbh.
Already explained my points on Obama /Palin comparison. and right there is why ^^^^ I did so.
So you're saying you can't. The person represents the opinion. That's very important, especially in politics. It goes to credibility and sincerity.lowing wrote:
No not really, since the inconsistency in the criticism is at the very heart of my point. there is no shortage of people that base their judgments on the person and not the opinion. It is ridiculous and inconsistent and as such removes all creditability for what you say you believe in.Kmar wrote:
Can't you defend her without talking about Obama? That's the second time you've had to resort to that with me in this thread.lowing wrote:
I guess you gotta forgive her for not having Columbia and Harvard laid at her feet. Maybe you should figure out WHY she bounced around before you condemn her for bouncing around. If you wanna dislike her for quitting fine, or playing the media like a fiddle that is ok as well, still does not mean she doesn't know what she is doing and isn't smart enough for politics. In fact they way she leads the media by the nose, seems to suggest she is a great politician, doesn't it?
Don't presume to think I do not know why she dropped out. But really six undergrad colleges? C'mon man.
The media follows her around mostly because people think she is a train wreck. I suppose by that logic Charlie Sheen could be in the running as well.
Well then, why did she bounce around?
Now she is a train wreck? Really? How so? I see her as being more popular and powerful and gaining speed every day, while Sheen falls into the abyss. She is not a train wreck. In fact to suggest that is just another example of haters hating.
Partly because of the curriculum, partly because of weather .. (yes weather). At least that's what the people around her have said.
Yes, some individuals see her as a train wreck. Make sure you note that I didn't say she was a train wreck. .. although she is at times entertaining. Paris Hilton was popular for a time. Time will tell with Palin as well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Great, weren't you the one that called the " 57 states" a gaff dismissing it?, and now use the Paul Revere thing as a clear indication that Palin is a "retard" or "lacking critical thinking"?Kmar wrote:
Again, if you believe I think Barry O is something great you're far from the truth.lowing wrote:
but that wasn't a "gaff", like "57 states plus Alaska and Hawaii"? That was "retardation" and a "lack of critical thinking". See where I am goin' with this?Kmar wrote:
She misrepresented the circumstance. Yes, Revere did warn the British once he was captured, at gun point. He was actually boasting about the colonial capability. Warning them really wasn't his intent. She was directly wrong when talking about firing shots. And certainly Revere didn’t warn anyone that the British were out to take anyone's arms.
Regarding the 57 states comment you worte: "There is a difference between a gaffe, and genuine ignorance".
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p3564258 so yes, regarding Obama and Palin and being caught in a brain fart moment, you are not consistent.
Nope, not for me, the opinion is what it is, regardless as to who carries it. and I think that opinion is right or wrong based on just about everything EXCEPT who holds it. example. I was not for govt. bailouts regardless if Bush wanted it or Obama wanted it. I would not be for govt. healthcare regardless as to who was pushing it. There is an obvious and inconsistent hatred of Palin that does not exist for Obama even though the shit he has done and said is far worse. and yes, that goes to the credibility of the people that hold inconsistent judgements based on the person and not the facts.Kmar wrote:
So you're saying you can't. The person represents the opinion. That's very important, especially in politics. It goes to credibility and sincerity.lowing wrote:
No not really, since the inconsistency in the criticism is at the very heart of my point. there is no shortage of people that base their judgments on the person and not the opinion. It is ridiculous and inconsistent and as such removes all creditability for what you say you believe in.Kmar wrote:
Can't you defend her without talking about Obama? That's the second time you've had to resort to that with me in this thread.
Don't presume to think I do not know why she dropped out. But really six undergrad colleges? C'mon man.
The media follows her around mostly because people think she is a train wreck. I suppose by that logic Charlie Sheen could be in the running as well.
Well then, why did she bounce around?
Now she is a train wreck? Really? How so? I see her as being more popular and powerful and gaining speed every day, while Sheen falls into the abyss. She is not a train wreck. In fact to suggest that is just another example of haters hating.
Partly because of the curriculum, partly because of weather .. (yes weather). At least that's what the people around her have said.
Yes, some individuals see her as a train wreck. Make sure you note that I didn't say she was a train wreck. .. although she is at times entertaining. Paris Hilton was popular for a time. Time will tell with Palin as well.
Because I just said I don't think Obama is great.. and you went to hunt down a thread where I suggested knowing how many states there are is trivial, you think I'm being inconsistent? Oh man, you're reaching.lowing wrote:
Great, weren't you the one that called the " 57 states" a gaff dismissing it?, and now use the Paul Revere thing as a clear indication that Palin is a "retard" or "lacking critical thinking"?Kmar wrote:
Again, if you believe I think Barry O is something great you're far from the truth.lowing wrote:
but that wasn't a "gaff", like "57 states plus Alaska and Hawaii"? That was "retardation" and a "lack of critical thinking". See where I am goin' with this?
Regarding the 57 states comment you worte: "There is a difference between a gaffe, and genuine ignorance".
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p3564258 so yes, regarding Obama and Palin and being caught in a brain fart moment, you are not consistent.
The events that transpired a couple hundred years ago is not quite as trivial, yet anyone with a college degree should surely know that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lol, yes it is inconsistent, you think Palin should have all her facts about Paul Revere and do not think Obama should know hoe many fuckin states there are? Lets turn it around, lets say Palin said there were 57 states, do you honestly think people like aussie or jaekus or maybe even you would dismiss it and forgive her? there is no indication in this thread that she would be let off the hook for that. They were both dumb moments on video yet Obama is a gaff and Palin is a retard. Sorry Kmar, yes it is inconsistent thinking.Kmar wrote:
Because I just said I don't think Obama is great.. and you went to hunt down a thread where I suggested knowing how many states there are is trivial, you think I'm being inconsistent? Oh man, you're reaching.lowing wrote:
Great, weren't you the one that called the " 57 states" a gaff dismissing it?, and now use the Paul Revere thing as a clear indication that Palin is a "retard" or "lacking critical thinking"?Kmar wrote:
Again, if you believe I think Barry O is something great you're far from the truth.
Regarding the 57 states comment you worte: "There is a difference between a gaffe, and genuine ignorance".
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p3564258 so yes, regarding Obama and Palin and being caught in a brain fart moment, you are not consistent.
The events that transpired a couple hundred years ago is not quite as trivial, yet anyone with a college degree should surely know that.
Last edited by lowing (2011-06-21 22:54:32)
That's very shallow. A stated opinion is just that, an opinion. Despite what you may think you do have to look deeper in to the person sharing the opinion for meaningful context and yes, credibility. And yea, there is plenty of hatred for Obama. You can't honestly believe there isn't.lowing wrote:
Nope, not for me, the opinion is what it is, regardless as to who carries it. and I think that opinion is right or wrong based on just about everything EXCEPT who holds it. example. I was not for govt. bailouts regardless if Bush wanted it or Obama wanted it. I would not be for govt. healthcare regardless as to who was pushing it. There is an obvious and inconsistent hatred of Palin that does not exist for Obama even though the shit he has done and said is far worse. and yes, that goes to the credibility of the people that hold inconsistent judgements based on the person and not the facts.Kmar wrote:
So you're saying you can't. The person represents the opinion. That's very important, especially in politics. It goes to credibility and sincerity.lowing wrote:
No not really, since the inconsistency in the criticism is at the very heart of my point. there is no shortage of people that base their judgments on the person and not the opinion. It is ridiculous and inconsistent and as such removes all creditability for what you say you believe in.
Well then, why did she bounce around?
Now she is a train wreck? Really? How so? I see her as being more popular and powerful and gaining speed every day, while Sheen falls into the abyss. She is not a train wreck. In fact to suggest that is just another example of haters hating.
Partly because of the curriculum, partly because of weather .. (yes weather). At least that's what the people around her have said.
Yes, some individuals see her as a train wreck. Make sure you note that I didn't say she was a train wreck. .. although she is at times entertaining. Paris Hilton was popular for a time. Time will tell with Palin as well.
The only reason you keep bringing Obama in to our discussion is for misdirection. Plain and simple. If Sarah Palin was able to be defended on her own merits you would be doing just that. Quite simply you're putting down other politicians to elevate her. That's very telling.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Really? So the ability to answer a question shouldn't be judged on the content of the question? It's pretty obvious when someone has a gaffe. It's also obvious when someone is genuinely stumped at answering a question. There are differences, and they are usually discerned by simply asking "what was the question".lowing wrote:
lol, yes it is inconsistent, you think Palin should have all her facts about Paul Revere and do not think Obama should know hoe many fuckin states there are? Lets turn it around, lets say Palin said there were 57 states, do you honestly think people like aussie or jaekus or maybe even you would dismiss it and forgive her? there is no indication in this thread that she would be let off the hook for that. They were both dumb moments on video yet Obama is a gaff and Palin is a retard. Sorry Kmar, yes it is inconsistent thinking.Kmar wrote:
Because I just said I don't think Obama is great.. and you went to hunt down a thread where I suggested knowing how many states there are is trivial, you think I'm being inconsistent? Oh man, you're reaching.lowing wrote:
Great, weren't you the one that called the " 57 states" a gaff dismissing it?, and now use the Paul Revere thing as a clear indication that Palin is a "retard" or "lacking critical thinking"?
Regarding the 57 states comment you worte: "There is a difference between a gaffe, and genuine ignorance".
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 8#p3564258 so yes, regarding Obama and Palin and being caught in a brain fart moment, you are not consistent.
The events that transpired a couple hundred years ago is not quite as trivial, yet anyone with a college degree should surely know that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Shallow? no sir, shallow is basing your judgment on WHO said a thing, and not WHAT was said.Kmar wrote:
That's very shallow. A stated opinion is just that, an opinion. Despite what you may think you do have to look deeper in to the person sharing the opinion for meaningful context and yes, credibility. And yea, there is plenty of hatred for Obama. You can't honestly believe there isn't.lowing wrote:
Nope, not for me, the opinion is what it is, regardless as to who carries it. and I think that opinion is right or wrong based on just about everything EXCEPT who holds it. example. I was not for govt. bailouts regardless if Bush wanted it or Obama wanted it. I would not be for govt. healthcare regardless as to who was pushing it. There is an obvious and inconsistent hatred of Palin that does not exist for Obama even though the shit he has done and said is far worse. and yes, that goes to the credibility of the people that hold inconsistent judgements based on the person and not the facts.Kmar wrote:
So you're saying you can't. The person represents the opinion. That's very important, especially in politics. It goes to credibility and sincerity.
Partly because of the curriculum, partly because of weather .. (yes weather). At least that's what the people around her have said.
Yes, some individuals see her as a train wreck. Make sure you note that I didn't say she was a train wreck. .. although she is at times entertaining. Paris Hilton was popular for a time. Time will tell with Palin as well.
The only reason you keep bringing Obama in to our discussion is for misdirection. Plain and simple. If Sarah Palin was able to be defended on her own merits you would be doing just that. Quite simply you're putting down other politicians to elevate her. That's very telling.
I do not feel there is a need to defend her, she hasn't done anything of consequence. you all are the ones trashing her and giving Obama the pass for worse shit. I challenge you to explain your different judgements for equivalent bullshit, and in most cases worse shit from Obama than Palin.
But, you don't have to hold politicians to the same standards. If you find them generally likeable, you are probably more apt to let certain things go. If you find them irritating then you aren't.
...
Yes, it should, and Obama has more than his fair share of "retardation" on camera, but somehow, it is dismissed as a gaffe by you. Or did you not see what happens when you remove Obamas teleprompters and is left on his own?Kmar wrote:
Really? So the ability to answer a question shouldn't be judged on the content of the question? It's pretty obvious when someone has a gaffe. It's also obvious when someone is genuinely stumped at answering a question. There are differences, and they are usually discerned by simply asking "what was the question".lowing wrote:
lol, yes it is inconsistent, you think Palin should have all her facts about Paul Revere and do not think Obama should know hoe many fuckin states there are? Lets turn it around, lets say Palin said there were 57 states, do you honestly think people like aussie or jaekus or maybe even you would dismiss it and forgive her? there is no indication in this thread that she would be let off the hook for that. They were both dumb moments on video yet Obama is a gaff and Palin is a retard. Sorry Kmar, yes it is inconsistent thinking.Kmar wrote:
Because I just said I don't think Obama is great.. and you went to hunt down a thread where I suggested knowing how many states there are is trivial, you think I'm being inconsistent? Oh man, you're reaching.
The events that transpired a couple hundred years ago is not quite as trivial, yet anyone with a college degree should surely know that.