Friday Night Dave
boston...@yahoo.com
Really thought Dave did a great job with Brian Williams. It was like
old Dave the way he ripped Palin.
Wish Dave was like that every night.
Bill
Maybe
I think Brady takes Friday's off. I did enjoy this show with all new
fresh jokes! Plus, Dave identified his political leanings by saying,
"Politically I'm an independent."
There were a lot of people who either thought he was a Democrat or
Republican so that puts that debate to rest.
Maybe...it was nice for a change of pace to have a Friday show done on
a Friday.
Deborah
I know he was there to promote his new movies, but I was surprised Tim
Robbins didn't make any political comments.
Deborah
Alan Page
"Maybe" wrote...
> Plus, Dave identified his political leanings by saying,
> "Politically I'm an independent."
"And I have the paperwork to verify this."
--
Alan
~WWWWW~
What a Wonderful Web We Weave
Brady
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:30:36 -0700 (PDT), boston...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> SInce I havent seen a synopsis yet,
>>
>> Really thought Dave did a great job with Brian Williams. It was like
>> old Dave the way he ripped Palin.
>> Wish Dave was like that every night.
>>
>> Bill
>
> I think Brady takes Friday's off. I did enjoy this show with all new
> fresh jokes! Plus, Dave identified his political leanings by saying,
> "Politically I'm an independent."
<snip>
He added, "And I have the paperwork to prove it!"
Brady
Alan Page
"Brady" wrote...
> He added, "And I have the paperwork to prove it!"
We're not looking for proof, but for verification.
Tom W
>
> I think Brady takes Friday's off. I did enjoy this show with all new
> fresh jokes! Plus, Dave identified his political leanings by saying,
> "Politically I'm an independent."
>
> There were a lot of people who either thought he was a Democrat or
> Republican so that puts that debate to rest.
I don't think it's going to change the mind of anybody who thinks Dave is firmly
committed to one side or the other.
Tom W
Bill Kawalec
"Maybe" <Maybe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:09jfe45388f73144e...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 10:30:36 -0700 (PDT), boston...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>SInce I havent seen a synopsis yet,
>>
>>Really thought Dave did a great job with Brian Williams. It was like
>>old Dave the way he ripped Palin.
>>Wish Dave was like that every night.
>>
>>Bill
>
> I think Brady takes Friday's off. I did enjoy this show with all new
> fresh jokes! Plus, Dave identified his political leanings by saying,
> "Politically I'm an independent."
He either doesn't really believe that, or he's delusional.
Deborah
<mixm...@gpftor3.privacyfoundation.de> wrote:
>> I know he was there to promote his new movies, but I was surprised Tim
>> Robbins didn't make any political comments.
>>
>> Deborah
The above is the sole and only contribution of mine in the entire post
which you attributed to me. Please get your effing attributions
straightened out. I especially dislike misattributions when what is
being attributed to me is a pile of bigotry. Thank you.
Deborah
R H Draney
I've also heard Leno claim to be politically neutral...as evidence, he points to
the hate mail he gets from both sides....
As if that proves anything....r
--
Little-known fact: About 2% of the famous
quotations credited to "Anonymous" were actually
originated by Jasper D Anonymous, a 14th-century
maker of carriage wheels.
Brad Hill
Totally agree. That was a great show, with tons of surprisingly frank
Daveness. Three Palin splice jobs! I like to imagine Dave being
presented with all three to choose one, and saying, "Hell, run them
all."
Brad
dsi...@yahoo.com
> > I think Brady takes Friday's off. I did enjoy this show with all new
> > fresh jokes! Plus, Dave identified his political leanings by saying,
> > "Politically I'm an independent."
>
> He either doesn't really believe that, or he's delusional.
I dunno. The times he's had McCain on, he's been pretty respectful
and deferred to him. And he's certainly told at least as many Clinton
jokes as he has Bush jokes. I'm sure if Obama is elected, he'll
manged to find some comedy fodder.
--Dake Sikula
Bill Kawalec
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:121783e0-58fa-441e...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
**************************************
I dunno. No one has yet.
"Stand up, Chuck!"
Steve Curtis
>"Bill Kawalec" wrote:
>>>I think Brady takes Friday's off. I did
>>>enjoy this show with all new fresh
>>>jokes! Plus, Dave identified his
>>>political leanings by saying, "Politically
>>>I'm an independent."
>>He either doesn't really believe that, or
>>he's delusional.
>I dunno. The times he's had McCain on,
>he's been pretty respectful and deferred
>to him. And he's certainly told at least as
>many Clinton jokes as he has Bush
>jokes. I'm sure if Obama is elected, he'll
>manged to find some comedy fodder.
How did you manage to mangle "manage" by posting a mangy "manged"
spelling as a substitution? Time to speak with AFL management about
this. :)
jimrobe...@gmail.com
out for using Palin as a pinata. And by "best," I mean sincere and
accurate.
I've watched Dave almost every night for more than 16 years, and his
shows since McCain canceled on him -- especially last Friday's -- have
been the first time I've been inclined to turn him off.
Bill Kawalec
<jimrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:115b0e79-b290-42a1...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
...and, on a related note, renowned ""journalist"" Couric didn't call Biden
out on his crap about Roosevelt going on TV in 1929 when the stock market
crash, because, unlike with Palin, Couric's agenda wasn't to nail him to the
wall.
(to save you some googling, Roosevelt was not president, and TV was not mass
media in 1929. )
randwill
"Bill Kawalec" <billk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:--2dna1YTc5J-XfV...@comcast.com...
Maybe Couric didn't know her history. Good thing she's not running for
anything.
You're confused about Couric's intentions. She didn't nail Palin to the
wall, unless you consider asking her simple questions about what newspapers
she reads and what Supreme Court desicions she disagrees with, 'nailing her
to the wall'. Palin did herself in, either through sheer dumbness or
inexperience with crafting answers to questions that are politcally
expedient.
But it works out for the good, because it demonstrates to the open-minded
voters what Palin is. As I've said before, anything that will help an
undecided voter, leaning towards McCain, to see the error of his or her ways
is a GOOD thing. We simply can't have four more years of cluelessness and
evil in the White House.
Bill Kawalec
"randwill" <rwilli...@triad.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tPSdnfGMoZXyWnfV...@giganews.com...
>
> "Bill Kawalec" <billk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:--2dna1YTc5J-XfV...@comcast.com...
>>
>> <jimrobe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:115b0e79-b290-42a1...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>I thought Brian had the best line of the night, when he called Dave
>>> out for using Palin as a pinata. And by "best," I mean sincere and
>>> accurate.
>>>
>>> I've watched Dave almost every night for more than 16 years, and his
>>> shows since McCain canceled on him -- especially last Friday's -- have
>>> been the first time I've been inclined to turn him off.
>>
>>
>>
>> ...and, on a related note, renowned ""journalist"" Couric didn't call
>> Biden out on his crap about Roosevelt going on TV in 1929 when the stock
>> market crash, because, unlike with Palin, Couric's agenda wasn't to nail
>> him to the wall.
>> (to save you some googling, Roosevelt was not president, and TV was not
>> mass media in 1929. )
>>
>>
>
> Maybe Couric didn't know her history. Good thing she's not running for
> anything.
>
> You're confused about Couric's intentions. She didn't nail Palin to the
> wall, unless you consider asking her simple questions about what
> newspapers she reads and what Supreme Court desicions she disagrees with,
> 'nailing her to the wall'.
Bullshit. She didn't ask what newspapers she "reads." She asked what
newspapers "shape her world view." It's a trap.
Palin did herself in, either through sheer dumbness or
> inexperience with crafting answers to questions that are politcally
> expedient.
>
> But it works out for the good, because it demonstrates to the open-minded
> voters what Palin is. As I've said before, anything that will help an
> undecided voter, leaning towards McCain, to see the error of his or her
> ways is a GOOD thing. We simply can't have four more years of cluelessness
> and evil in the White House.
>
If you serioulsy think there will be any ""change,"" you got a lot of damn
gall questioning anyone's open mindedness.
>
>
Bill Kawalec
Bernadine Dohrn Hosted A Meeting Of Chicago Liberals At Their Home For
Obama, Which One Attendee Said Was Aimed At "Launching Him." "In 1995, State
Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few
of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures
on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While Ayers and Dohrn
may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they're better known
nationally as two of the most notorious -- and unrepentant -- figures from
the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. ... 'I can remember being
one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers' house to learn that
Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,'
said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for
single-payer health care, of the info rmal gathering at the home of Ayers
and his wife, Dohrn. '[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.' ... Dr.
Young and another guest, Maria Warren, described it similarly: as an
introduction to Hyde Park liberals of the handpicked successor to Palmer, a
well-regarded figure on the left. 'When I first met Barack Obama, he was
giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two
legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn,' Warren wrote
on her blog in 2005. 'They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde
Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.'" (Ben Smith, "Obama
Once Visited '60s Radicals," The Politico, 1/22/08)
katycren
And your point is?
dsi...@yahoo.com
> Bullshit. She didn't ask what newspapers she "reads." She asked what
> newspapers "shape her world view." It's a trap.
I agree that Palin hung herself, but: A) all she had to say was, "No
newspapers shape my world view. My faith and experiences do that" or
some such boilerplate. But she panicked and gave a stupid answer, and
B) she was perfectly capable of giving off a list of papers in answer
to that question when she was warned it would be asked.
Also, I find the hypocrisy of, on the one hand, mentioning the Times
as a way to get a cheap reaction from a partisan crowd, and on the
other, citing it as an reliable source for the Obama/Ayers story
typical of this campaign. If it's so toxic that it can't be trusted,
why does any of its reporting have any credibility?
Bah.
--Dave Sikula
dsi...@yahoo.com
Ad yet, nowhere in this excerpt or the story is there any indication
that Ayers and Obama were more than acquaintances who met, what, six
times?, in the course of a series of neighborhood meetings over a
period of years. As Katy asked, what's your point here?
--Dave Sikula
Bill Kawalec
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0ca720d1-42cd-4e35...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 1:47 am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bullshit. She didn't ask what newspapers she "reads." She asked what
> newspapers "shape her world view." It's a trap.
I agree that Palin hung herself, but: A) all she had to say was, "No
newspapers shape my world view. My faith and experiences do that" or
some such boilerplate. But she panicked and gave a stupid answer, and
B) she was perfectly capable of giving off a list of papers in answer
to that question when she was warned it would be asked.
***************************************
yeah, but then you can bet your ass that SeeBS would have launched an
"investigation" to find out which papers she cited she actually
subscribes/has access to. I still don't grasp the relevance of the question.
Bill Kawalec
"katycren" <Katy...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:74ca4f9f-1ee9-44a7...@g61g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
And your point is?
***********************************************************
Obama needs to come clean, if he can.
It's all really of little consequence though. One of these clowns is going
to be elected president. If American voters were really informed and open
minded, this would be the year the two party system went down.
Brad Hill
[Dave S.]
> I agree that Palin hung herself, but: A) all she had to say was, "No
> newspapers shape my world view. My faith and experiences do that" or
> some such boilerplate. But she panicked and gave a stupid answer, and
> B) she was perfectly capable of giving off a list of papers in answer
> to that question when she was warned it would be asked.
>
> ***************************************
> yeah, but then you can bet your ass that SeeBS would have launched an
> "investigation" to find out which papers she cited she actually
> subscribes/has access to. I still don't grasp the relevance of the question.
I think it was a good question that potentially brings the candidate
into the everyday world. I'd like to hear answers from all four of
them. I read a lot of papers and magazines, and a politician's answer
to that question helps triangulate him or her. It's also a dangerous
question -- another reason I like it. It was too dangerous for Palin;
I think that's why it hung her out to dry. I don't believe that she
reads *nothing*, and I think she instantly realized that straight
answers would cause trouble for her. She was paralyzed by
inexperience. She could have straddled the aisle and elevated her
image like this: "It might surprise you to know that I read the NY
Times. I frequently disagree with the OpEd page, but the international
reporting is splendid."
Brad
R H Draney
>
>I think it was a good question that potentially brings the candidate
>into the everyday world. I'd like to hear answers from all four of
>them. I read a lot of papers and magazines, and a politician's answer
>to that question helps triangulate him or her. It's also a dangerous
>question -- another reason I like it. It was too dangerous for Palin;
>I think that's why it hung her out to dry. I don't believe that she
>reads *nothing*, and I think she instantly realized that straight
>answers would cause trouble for her. She was paralyzed by
>inexperience. She could have straddled the aisle and elevated her
>image like this: "It might surprise you to know that I read the NY
>Times. I frequently disagree with the OpEd page, but the international
>reporting is splendid."
"I got this swell governorship by selling Grit! door to door"....r
katycren
> "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:--2dna1YTc5J-XfV...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > <jimroberts2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:115b0e79-b290-42a1...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>I thought Brian had the best line of the night, when he called Dave
> >> out for using Palin as a pinata. And by "best," I mean sincere and
> >> accurate.
>
> >> I've watched Dave almost every night for more than 16 years, and his
> >> shows since McCain canceled on him -- especially last Friday's -- have
> >> been the first time I've been inclined to turn him off.
>
> > ...and, on a related note, renowned ""journalist"" Couric didn't call
> > Biden out on his crap about Roosevelt going on TV in 1929 when the stock
> > market crash, because, unlike with Palin, Couric's agenda wasn't to nail
> > him to the wall.
> > (to save you some googling, Roosevelt was not president, and TV was not
> > mass media in 1929. )
>
> Maybe Couric didn't know her history. Good thing she's not running for
> anything.
>
> You're confused about Couric's intentions. She didn't nail Palin to the
> wall, unless you consider asking her simple questions about what newspapers
> she reads and what Supreme Court desicions she disagrees with, 'nailing her
> to the wall'. Palin did herself in, either through sheer dumbness or
> inexperience with crafting answers to questions that are politcally
> expedient.
>
Sarah Palin has her own brand of "Frontier Baroque," a mix of what
Maureen Dowd describes as "pompom patois and sing-songy jingoism."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/opinion/05dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Perhaps all the future politicians should wake up and pay attention to
their English teachers. :)
Kate
Alan Page
"Brad Hill" wrote...
> "It might surprise you to know that I read the NY
> Times. I frequently disagree with the OpEd page, but the international
> reporting is splendid."
Yeah, but it's so...so...wordy.
Bill Kawalec
"Brad Hill" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:14bb586a-9353-4055...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 2:33 pm, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Dave S.]
> I agree that Palin hung herself, but: A) all she had to say was, "No
> newspapers shape my world view. My faith and experiences do that" or
> some such boilerplate. But she panicked and gave a stupid answer, and
> B) she was perfectly capable of giving off a list of papers in answer
> to that question when she was warned it would be asked.
>
> ***************************************
> yeah, but then you can bet your ass that SeeBS would have launched an
> "investigation" to find out which papers she cited she actually
> subscribes/has access to. I still don't grasp the relevance of the
> question.
I think it was a good question that potentially brings the candidate
into the everyday world. I'd like to hear answers from all four of
them. I read a lot of papers and magazines, and a politician's answer
to that question helps triangulate him or her.
*************************************
Nuh uh. No thinking person should allow any newspaper to "shape their world
view." Those are for information. One's world view should be shpaed by one's
own common sense.
Bill Kawalec
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/opinion/05dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Kate
************************************
y'all seem to forget (or perhaps just want to ignore) her 80%+ approval
rating as governor.
Bill Kawalec
> "Brad Hill" wrote...
>> "It might surprise you to know that I read the NY
>> Times. I frequently disagree with the OpEd page, but the international
>> reporting is splendid."
>
There ya go. You read it for the inforamtion, but, since you can think for
yourself, it does not "shape your world view."
Deborah
<billk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>y'all seem to forget (or perhaps just want to ignore) her 80%+ approval
>rating as governor.
80% of a population numbered at what?
Deborah
Alan Page
"Deborah" wrote...
> 80% of a population numbered at what?
Census Bureau 2006 estimate: 670,053
Wikipedia has her elected governor with 114,697 votes or 48% of those
voted.
dsi...@yahoo.com
> "katycren" <Katyc...@aol.com> wrote in message
As of October 1st, the Anchorage Daily News has her down to 68%:
http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/542179.html. Still hefty, but
definitely downward.
--Dave Sikuka
Deborah
<alp...@spamsucceed.net> wrote:
>
>"Deborah" wrote...
>> 80% of a population numbered at what?
>
> Census Bureau 2006 estimate: 670,053
Well that certainly ought to clinch it for America, lol!
Bill Kawalec
"Deborah" <deb...@glugluglug.com> wrote in message
news:b9coe45e03abtpo39...@4ax.com...
uhhhhhhhhhhh, that makes a difference to you!?!?! That's why it's a
PERCENTAGE, Einstein.
>
> Deborah
Bill Kawalec
"Alan Page" <alp...@spamsucceed.net> wrote in message
news:6l2qsoF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Deborah" wrote...
>> 80% of a population numbered at what?
>
> Census Bureau 2006 estimate: 670,053
>
> Wikipedia has her elected governor with 114,697 votes or 48% of those
> voted.
>
> --
Which also has nothing to do with her current approval rating, Einstein, Jr.
Bill Kawalec
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d87b824e-157d-4ec5...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
--Dave Sikuka
Yep. Beats the president, congress and Pelosi combined.
dsi...@yahoo.com
> <dsik...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Personally, I'd like to beat the president, the Congress, and Pelosi
myself -- but that's another matter.
--Dake Sikula
Sally
Bah? Let me tell you what gets a bah from me. Katie Couric's interview
of her. She kept asking her the same question, over and over about
what magazines she reads. Was Palin supposed to recite the litany of
PolitcallyCorrect magazines? Couric kept repeating the damn question.
Palin's response was cordial, and she said Alaska was part of the U.S.
and she kept herself informed by reading a variety of sources. Katie
was dumb during that interview, and biased, IMHO. Palin could've
goosed her by saying she read "MAD" magazine, the Enquirer and
Playgirl. I would've. But then, I'm not Ms. Congeniality.
Bah.
Sally, a fan of the Jeopardy champ
R H Draney
>
>Bah? Let me tell you what gets a bah from me. Katie Couric's interview
>of her. She kept asking her the same question, over and over about
>what magazines she reads. Was Palin supposed to recite the litany of
>PolitcallyCorrect magazines? Couric kept repeating the damn question.
>Palin's response was cordial, and she said Alaska was part of the U.S.
>and she kept herself informed by reading a variety of sources. Katie
>was dumb during that interview, and biased, IMHO. Palin could've
>goosed her by saying she read "MAD" magazine, the Enquirer and
>Playgirl. I would've. But then, I'm not Ms. Congeniality.
Consumer Reports, Wired, Mental Floss, 2600 Hacker Quarterly, Route 66, Asian
Cult Cinema, and Heroes....
There...I just named the last seven magazines I read....
Is this supposed to be a *hard* question?...r
Bill Kawalec
"Sally" <Sally...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1e3dc779-ecb4-4e66...@w13g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 7, 2:28?pm, "dsik...@yahoo.com" <dsik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 1:47?am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Bullshit. She didn't ask what newspapers she "reads." She asked what
> > newspapers "shape her world view." It's a trap.
>
> I agree that Palin hung herself, but: A) all she had to say was, "No
> newspapers shape my world view. My faith and experiences do that" or
> B) she was perfectly capable of giving off a list of papers in answer
> to that question when she was warned it would be asked.
>
> Also, I find the hypocrisy of, on the one hand, mentioning the Times
> as a way to get a cheap reaction from a partisan crowd, and on the
> other, citing it as an reliable source for the Obama/Ayers story
> typical of this campaign. If it's so toxic that it can't be trusted,
> why does any of its reporting have any credibility?
>
> Bah.
>
> --Dave Sikula
Bah? Let me tell you what gets a bah from me. Katie Couric's interview
of her. She kept asking her the same question, over and over about
what magazines she reads. Was Palin supposed to recite the litany of
PolitcallyCorrect magazines? Couric kept repeating the damn question.
Palin's response was cordial, and she said Alaska was part of the U.S.
and she kept herself informed by reading a variety of sources. Katie
was dumb during that interview, and biased, IMHO. Palin could've
goosed her by saying she read "MAD" magazine, the Enquirer and
Playgirl. I would've. But then, I'm not Ms. Congeniality.
Bah.
Sally, a fan of the Jeopardy champ
***********************************
Yep. Bias was never more clear. As I said before, that question was a trap.
I think Palin recognized i as such, and couldn't quickly think of a good
comeback.
Bill Kawalec
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:gcj3o...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Sally filted:
>>
>>Bah? Let me tell you what gets a bah from me. Katie Couric's interview
>>of her. She kept asking her the same question, over and over about
>>what magazines she reads. Was Palin supposed to recite the litany of
>>PolitcallyCorrect magazines? Couric kept repeating the damn question.
>>Palin's response was cordial, and she said Alaska was part of the U.S.
>>and she kept herself informed by reading a variety of sources. Katie
>>was dumb during that interview, and biased, IMHO. Palin could've
>>goosed her by saying she read "MAD" magazine, the Enquirer and
>>Playgirl. I would've. But then, I'm not Ms. Congeniality.
>
> Consumer Reports, Wired, Mental Floss, 2600 Hacker Quarterly, Route 66,
> Asian
> Cult Cinema, and Heroes....
>
> There...I just named the last seven magazines I read....
>
> Is this supposed to be a *hard* question?...r
Again, that was **not** the question. The question was about what "shapes
your world view." Would your answer to that question be the same?
polar
> On Oct 7, 2:28�pm, "dsik...@yahoo.com" <dsik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 1:47�am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bullshit. She didn't ask what newspapers she "reads." She asked what
>>> newspapers "shape her world view." It's a trap.
>> I agree that Palin hung herself, but: A) all she had to say was, "No
>> newspapers shape my world view. My faith and experiences do that" or
>> some such boilerplate. �But she panicked and gave a stupid answer, and
>> B) she was perfectly capable of giving off a list of papers in answer
>> to that question when she was warned it would be asked.
>>
>> Also, I find the hypocrisy of, on the one hand, mentioning the Times
>> as a way to get a cheap reaction from a partisan crowd, and on the
>> other, citing it as an reliable source for the Obama/Ayers story
>> typical of this campaign. If it's so toxic that it can't be trusted,
>> why does any of its reporting have any credibility?
>>
>> Bah.
>>
>> --Dave Sikula
>
> Bah? Let me tell you what gets a bah from me. Katie Couric's interview
> of her. She kept asking her the same question, over and over about
> what magazines she reads. Was Palin supposed to recite the litany of
> PolitcallyCorrect magazines?
Palin was supposed to answer the question honestly.
It's always safest to tell the truth.
Even Dubya admitted he doesn't really "read" the
newspapers, only a few headlines.
Bill Kawalec
"polar" <po...@winternet.com> wrote in message
news:wIWdnVrHTfFdvHDV...@posted.visi...
> Sally wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2:28?pm, "dsik...@yahoo.com" <dsik...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 1:47?am, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bullshit. She didn't ask what newspapers she "reads." She asked what
>>>> newspapers "shape her world view." It's a trap.
>>> I agree that Palin hung herself, but: A) all she had to say was, "No
>>> newspapers shape my world view. My faith and experiences do that" or
>>> B) she was perfectly capable of giving off a list of papers in answer
>>> to that question when she was warned it would be asked.
>>>
>>> Also, I find the hypocrisy of, on the one hand, mentioning the Times
>>> as a way to get a cheap reaction from a partisan crowd, and on the
>>> other, citing it as an reliable source for the Obama/Ayers story
>>> typical of this campaign. If it's so toxic that it can't be trusted,
>>> why does any of its reporting have any credibility?
>>>
>>> Bah.
>>>
>>> --Dave Sikula
>>
>> Bah? Let me tell you what gets a bah from me. Katie Couric's interview
>> of her. She kept asking her the same question, over and over about
>> what magazines she reads. Was Palin supposed to recite the litany of
>> PolitcallyCorrect magazines?
>
> Palin was supposed to answer the question honestly.
> It's always safest to tell the truth.
> Even Dubya admitted he doesn't really "read" the
> newspapers, only a few headlines.
>
>
Again, the question was not what she "reads."
R H Draney
>> Asian
>> Cult Cinema, and Heroes....
>>
>> There...I just named the last seven magazines I read....
>>
>> Is this supposed to be a *hard* question?...r
>
>
>
>Again, that was **not** the question. The question was about what "shapes
>your world view." Would your answer to that question be the same?
In part, sure....
Everything I see, read, hear, or otherwise experience shapes my world view to
some extent....
Even *you* shape my world view....
But don't get too puffed up about it...so did the baked potato I had for
lunch....r
dsi...@yahoo.com
> Yep. Bias was never more clear. As I said before, that question was a trap.
> I think Palin recognized i as such, and couldn't quickly think of a good
> comeback.
But I think that avoids the issue, Bill. If I were to ask you what
periodicals shape your own world view, I don't think you'd have a
problem either giving me -- quickly -- a list of magazines and
newspapers -- or even telling me that magazines have nothing to do
with that formation, and tell me what -does- shape your views -- be
they life experiences, philosophers, authors, websites, TV shows -- or
even cartoons.
All Palin had to do was tell Couric how she forms her opinions and
views and it would have been a non-issue. Palin couldn't, and that was
the problem arose. Palin is (for most of us) a blank slate, so I don't
think it's a gotcha in the sense that it helps us know what she
considers important and valuable to know. It's no more of a gotcha
than the debate in 2000 when the GOP candidates were asked who was the
political philosopher who influenced them the most, and Bush replied
"Jesus." It told us a lot of what we needed to know about him.
--Dave Sikula
Alan Page
"R H Draney" wrote...
> But don't get too puffed up about it...so did the baked potato I had for
> lunch....r
All the baked potato will puff up is the poop you could eat tomorrow.
Ask Harry.
--
R H Draney
>
>
>"R H Draney" wrote...
>> But don't get too puffed up about it...so did the baked potato I had for
>> lunch....r
>
> All the baked potato will puff up is the poop you could eat tomorrow.
> Ask Harry.
"Look! Pinecones!"
Bill Kawalec
> Bill Kawalec filted:
>>
>>"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>news:gcj3o...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>> Consumer Reports, Wired, Mental Floss, 2600 Hacker Quarterly, Route 66,
>>> Asian
>>> Cult Cinema, and Heroes....
>>>
>>> There...I just named the last seven magazines I read....
>>>
>>> Is this supposed to be a *hard* question?...r
>>
>>
>>
>>Again, that was **not** the question. The question was about what "shapes
>>your world view." Would your answer to that question be the same?
>
> In part, sure....
>
> Everything I see, read, hear, or otherwise experience shapes my world view
> to
> some extent....
>
> Even *you* shape my world view....
>
> But don't get too puffed up about it...so did the baked potato I had for
> lunch....r
>
you have a point?
Bill Kawalec
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a04cf296-05b1-4e14...@u29g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 8, 1:58 pm, "Bill Kawalec" <billkawa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yep. Bias was never more clear. As I said before, that question was a
> trap.
> I think Palin recognized i as such, and couldn't quickly think of a good
> comeback.
But I think that avoids the issue, Bill. If I were to ask you what
periodicals shape your own world view, I don't think you'd have a
problem either giving me -- quickly -- a list of magazines and
newspapers -- or even telling me that magazines have nothing to do
with that formation, and tell me what -does- shape your views -- be
they life experiences, philosophers, authors, websites, TV shows -- or
even cartoons.
*************************
but I'm not running for a major public office
**************************
All Palin had to do was tell Couric how she forms her opinions and
views and it would have been a non-issue. Palin couldn't, and that was
the problem arose. Palin is (for most of us) a blank slate, so I don't
think it's a gotcha in the sense that it helps us know what she
considers important and valuable to know.
*****************************
Actually, I can conceive of this being a 'brain freeze' moment, where one is
trying to weigh all the consequences of all the possible answers.
*********************************
It's no more of a gotcha
than the debate in 2000 when the GOP candidates were asked who was the
political philosopher who influenced them the most, and Bush replied
"Jesus." It told us a lot of what we needed to know about him.
***************************
Bush, in spite of the fact that so many want to insist he's dumb, had a lot
of good answers to campaign questions. In 2004, for instance, when someone
asked who, between himself and Kerry, had served his country better in the
Vietnam era, his reply was "he did." Bingo! Dead issue!
(btw, I've heard that GWB's IQ is 125. I don't know how one could ever
verify that, though.)
dsi...@yahoo.com
> But I think that avoids the issue, Bill. If I were to ask you what
> periodicals shape your own world view, I don't think you'd have a
> problem either giving me -- quickly -- a list of magazines and
> newspapers -- or even telling me that magazines have nothing to do
> with that formation, and tell me what -does- shape your views -- be
> they life experiences, philosophers, authors, websites, TV shows -- or
> even cartoons.
>
> *************************
> but I'm not running for a major public office
> **************************
Exactly; so isn't it more incumbent on someone who is to be able to do
that?
> All Palin had to do was tell Couric how she forms her opinions and
> views and it would have been a non-issue. Palin couldn't, and that was
> the problem arose. Palin is (for most of us) a blank slate, so I don't
> think it's a gotcha in the sense that it helps us know what she
> considers important and valuable to know.
>
> *****************************
> Actually, I can conceive of this being a 'brain freeze' moment, where one is
> trying to weigh all the consequences of all the possible answers.
> *********************************
Agreed.
> It's no more of a gotcha
> than the debate in 2000 when the GOP candidates were asked who was the
> political philosopher who influenced them the most, and Bush replied
> "Jesus." It told us a lot of what we needed to know about him.
>
> ***************************
> Bush, in spite of the fact that so many want to insist he's dumb, had a lot
> of good answers to campaign questions. In 2004, for instance, when someone
> asked who, between himself and Kerry, had served his country better in the
> Vietnam era, his reply was "he did." Bingo! Dead issue!
>
> (btw, I've heard that GWB's IQ is 125. I don't know how one could ever
> verify that, though.)
I'm not saying Bush is stupid at all (and am not saying you're saying
I did). I think he's incurious, lazy, and tunnel-visioned, but not
stupid. My point is that the answer points less to stupidity than to
his (dare I say it?) world view; that religion is extremely important
to him and trumps a lot of other areas.
--Dave Sikula
Bill Kawalec
<dsi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a998815e-3beb-4e1d...@v16g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Agreed.
--Dave Sikula
***********************************
...but it is an honest answer.
polar
Okay, it wasn't.
But Palin still didn't answer honestly.
Bill Kawalec
you're going in circles now.
or you haven't read the entire thread.
>