Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Sarah Palin the Movie(2012?)
123 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Anderson
Apr 3, 2012, 6:18:26 PM4/3/12
to
On 4/3/2012 2:47 PM, Stone me wrote:
> Can't wait for this to become a "past movie."
>
> Anyone seen it, and care to comment?
>
> http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/uk-palin-moore-idUKBRE8320MA20120403
>
I saw it and came away somewhat gratified by the way the film treated
Sarah Palin. She is after all a wife and mother and, even more
important, a human being who deserves her dignity. She was also
abysmally unprepared to become Vice President of the United States, a
fact that according to the movie became apparent to John McCain and his
team only after they had hastily selected her.
While of course I wasn't there and will never know all the
who-said-whats and the who-did-whats-to-whom, the movie lays out a story
that at least rings plausible to me. Add this to the fact that the key
McCain/Palin aides portrayed in the movie by Woody Harrelson and Sarah
Paulson are not disputing the story, and I'm willing to accept the
movie's necessarily fictionalized private interactions as close
approximations of actual events. Palin's aide Nicolle Wallace says the
movie is "true enough to make [her] squirm." McCain's aide and another
key character in the movie, Steve Schmidt, says: “I think it was very
accurate. For all of us in the campaign, it really rang true. It gave
you a little bit of PTSD at times. It did for me. But, look, I think
it’s a story of when cynicism and idealism collide, when you have to do
things necessary to win, to try to get in office to do the great things
you want to do for the country. And I think it showed a process of
vetting that was debilitated by secrecy, that was compartmentalized,
that failed, that led to a result that was reckless for the country. I
think when you look back at that race, you see this person who is just
so phenomenally talented at so many levels, an ability to connect but
also someone who had a lot of flaws as someone running, you know, to be
in the national command authority who clearly wasn’t prepared.”
For a time early on I seriously toyed with the idea of voting for McCain
in the last election. We were waging two wars and he was the candidate
with military experience, plus years of experience in the Senate. I
kinda liked John McCain; still do. And Obama was a fresh face,
untested. Naturally I leaned toward McCain. And then....
I remember clearly that before he made his VP selection John McCain
promised us all that he would pick a running mate who would be prepared
to take over should anything happen to him. Count on it. Then he
picked Palin and at first I was skeptical of her, but it wasn't until
Katie Couric asked the newspaper question (one memorable campaign moment
among many nicely recreated in the movie) that I realized McCain hadn't
kept his word. I suspect that moment had a similar effect on lots of
voters. And after that, even with her expertly choreographed
performance in the Vice Presidential debate, things only got worse for
Palin.
GAME CHANGE is fair, I think. It shows how Sarah Palin gave the McCain
campaign everything it wanted from her with regard to razzle-dazzle
fireworks. She truly energized the base; she can work an audience; she
became a star. While watching the movie I kept thinking that if Sarah
Palin had Hillary Clinton's intellect, we'd have our first female
President. At what she can do, Sarah Palin is very, very good. But the
movie makes a convincing case that the Governor is lacking in the
education and intellectual curiosity the country requires in a President.
GAME CHANGE may not have portrayed with precise accuracy everything that
actually happened in the 2008 Republican presidential campaign, but at
least I'm no longer baffled while wondering how that campaign could have
made such a colossal blunder in picking a VP. In the movie, it all
makes sense. If you're interested in American politics, you really
ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
> Can't wait for this to become a "past movie."
>
> Anyone seen it, and care to comment?
>
> http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/uk-palin-moore-idUKBRE8320MA20120403
>
I saw it and came away somewhat gratified by the way the film treated
Sarah Palin. She is after all a wife and mother and, even more
important, a human being who deserves her dignity. She was also
abysmally unprepared to become Vice President of the United States, a
fact that according to the movie became apparent to John McCain and his
team only after they had hastily selected her.
While of course I wasn't there and will never know all the
who-said-whats and the who-did-whats-to-whom, the movie lays out a story
that at least rings plausible to me. Add this to the fact that the key
McCain/Palin aides portrayed in the movie by Woody Harrelson and Sarah
Paulson are not disputing the story, and I'm willing to accept the
movie's necessarily fictionalized private interactions as close
approximations of actual events. Palin's aide Nicolle Wallace says the
movie is "true enough to make [her] squirm." McCain's aide and another
key character in the movie, Steve Schmidt, says: “I think it was very
accurate. For all of us in the campaign, it really rang true. It gave
you a little bit of PTSD at times. It did for me. But, look, I think
it’s a story of when cynicism and idealism collide, when you have to do
things necessary to win, to try to get in office to do the great things
you want to do for the country. And I think it showed a process of
vetting that was debilitated by secrecy, that was compartmentalized,
that failed, that led to a result that was reckless for the country. I
think when you look back at that race, you see this person who is just
so phenomenally talented at so many levels, an ability to connect but
also someone who had a lot of flaws as someone running, you know, to be
in the national command authority who clearly wasn’t prepared.”
For a time early on I seriously toyed with the idea of voting for McCain
in the last election. We were waging two wars and he was the candidate
with military experience, plus years of experience in the Senate. I
kinda liked John McCain; still do. And Obama was a fresh face,
untested. Naturally I leaned toward McCain. And then....
I remember clearly that before he made his VP selection John McCain
promised us all that he would pick a running mate who would be prepared
to take over should anything happen to him. Count on it. Then he
picked Palin and at first I was skeptical of her, but it wasn't until
Katie Couric asked the newspaper question (one memorable campaign moment
among many nicely recreated in the movie) that I realized McCain hadn't
kept his word. I suspect that moment had a similar effect on lots of
voters. And after that, even with her expertly choreographed
performance in the Vice Presidential debate, things only got worse for
Palin.
GAME CHANGE is fair, I think. It shows how Sarah Palin gave the McCain
campaign everything it wanted from her with regard to razzle-dazzle
fireworks. She truly energized the base; she can work an audience; she
became a star. While watching the movie I kept thinking that if Sarah
Palin had Hillary Clinton's intellect, we'd have our first female
President. At what she can do, Sarah Palin is very, very good. But the
movie makes a convincing case that the Governor is lacking in the
education and intellectual curiosity the country requires in a President.
GAME CHANGE may not have portrayed with precise accuracy everything that
actually happened in the 2008 Republican presidential campaign, but at
least I'm no longer baffled while wondering how that campaign could have
made such a colossal blunder in picking a VP. In the movie, it all
makes sense. If you're interested in American politics, you really
ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
calvin
Apr 3, 2012, 6:35:01 PM4/3/12
to
On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
to see another hit job on her.
Yeah, we're really lucky to have dodged a bullet and
gotten a President more qualified than she (NOT) and a
better Vice President than she would have been (NOT).
> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
to see another hit job on her.
Yeah, we're really lucky to have dodged a bullet and
gotten a President more qualified than she (NOT) and a
better Vice President than she would have been (NOT).
gtr
Apr 3, 2012, 7:46:33 PM4/3/12
to
On 2012-04-03 22:18:26 +0000, Bill Anderson said:
For a time early on I seriously toyed with the idea of voting for McCain in the last election. We were waging two wars and he was the candidate with military experience, plus years of experience in the Senate. I kinda liked John McCain; still do. And Obama was a fresh face, untested. Naturally I leaned toward McCain. And then....
I've been opposed to Republican policy since forever. I'm not opposed to all their ideals, just the chasm between their stated ideals and their actual policies.
The curious aspect about McCain is because he is so "mavericky" he had a significant advantage with the middle and left that no other candidate had during that season. But even before we got to the flawed Palin decision, he had re-wired a boatload of his viewpoint to coincide with "the base". You have apparently have to have the base or rank-and-file Republicans will vote willy nilly for Democrats--that's apparently a part of indecipherable logic. There's some 1950's logic for you...
Had he picked almost anyone who could have actually functioned as a back-up for the POTUS, he would seemingly have had a vastly better chance. But he was trying to get females specifically, so he made a bad decision. He also made another bad decision by not going after Obama as a moslem terrorist communist who wasn't born in the USA. I pity him for the first; I thank him for the second but assume it is the last such honesty we'll see in the Rush Limbaugh era. That was McCain at is "mavericky" best, say I.
GAME CHANGE is fair, I think. It shows how Sarah Palin gave the McCain campaign everything it wanted from her with regard to razzle-dazzle fireworks. She truly energized the base; she can work an audience; she became a star.
She gave them what they bought: entertainment, celebrity, personality, attitude. All in a thin crispy shell over a woman with some significant issues that don't include a life-long pursuit of policy understanding, history, news or even politics.
While watching the movie I kept thinking that if Sarah Palin had Hillary Clinton's intellect, we'd have our first female President.
You're right: If she were someone else she might be someone else. Hell if McCain had Hillary's abilities HE might be the president!
At what she can do, Sarah Palin is very, very good. But the movie makes a convincing case that the Governor is lacking in the education and intellectual curiosity the country requires in a President.
As it turns out she didn't quite have the ability or the desire to be governor either.
--
I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. -- Galileo
Heynonny
Apr 4, 2012, 3:53:23 AM4/4/12
to
I want to hear what calvin says about this.
Long-time sympatico with John McCain, I thought this nailed him. Not
the voice or the appearance, but the core of the man. His refusal to
let loose the birthers et al is an act of courage I hope becomes more
widely-known and long-remembered; I think maybe he would have won had
he thus sold his soul. His continuing loyalty to Palin is the loyalty
of soldier-to-soldier. I admire it.
The thing reeked with empathy for Palin. The villain of the piece is
the system we, public, citizens, voters, have allowed to grow like a
cancer on the public good.
Obviously it would have been nice to have had a seven hour $300 million
movie that covered the epic scope of the book. I particularly missed
the Clinton campaign content. But for the price, a good piece of work.
Long-time sympatico with John McCain, I thought this nailed him. Not
the voice or the appearance, but the core of the man. His refusal to
let loose the birthers et al is an act of courage I hope becomes more
widely-known and long-remembered; I think maybe he would have won had
he thus sold his soul. His continuing loyalty to Palin is the loyalty
of soldier-to-soldier. I admire it.
The thing reeked with empathy for Palin. The villain of the piece is
the system we, public, citizens, voters, have allowed to grow like a
cancer on the public good.
Obviously it would have been nice to have had a seven hour $300 million
movie that covered the epic scope of the book. I particularly missed
the Clinton campaign content. But for the price, a good piece of work.
John Doe
Apr 4, 2012, 5:50:44 AM4/4/12
to
Heynonny <nospam noway.com> wrote:
> I want to hear what calvin says about this.
>
> Long-time sympatico with John McCain, I thought this nailed him.
> Not the voice or the appearance, but the core of the man. His
> refusal to let loose the birthers et al is an act of courage I
> hope becomes more widely-known and long-remembered; I think
> maybe he would have won had he thus sold his soul. His
> continuing loyalty to Palin is the loyalty of
> soldier-to-soldier. I admire it.
>
> The thing reeked with empathy for Palin. The villain of the
> piece is the system we, public, citizens, voters, have allowed
> to grow like a cancer on the public good.
Since women were given the right to vote, the system has been in
> I want to hear what calvin says about this.
>
> Long-time sympatico with John McCain, I thought this nailed him.
> Not the voice or the appearance, but the core of the man. His
> refusal to let loose the birthers et al is an act of courage I
> hope becomes more widely-known and long-remembered; I think
> maybe he would have won had he thus sold his soul. His
> continuing loyalty to Palin is the loyalty of
> soldier-to-soldier. I admire it.
>
> The thing reeked with empathy for Palin. The villain of the
> piece is the system we, public, citizens, voters, have allowed
> to grow like a cancer on the public good.
their hands and in their ruling class keeper's hands. I would
avoid blaming ordinary men for a system they cannot peacefully
change. Government is forever expanding not by accident.
--
calvin
Apr 4, 2012, 9:54:50 AM4/4/12
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:53:23 AM UTC-4, Heynonny wrote:
> I want to hear what calvin says about this.
> ...
> I want to hear what calvin says about this.
Thanks, but I really don't want to see the movie.
I have no problem with what you said in your post
here about McCain. I'm no big fan of his, but I
voted for him and Palin, and I'm always glad to
hear him stick up for her.
moviePig
Apr 4, 2012, 10:12:04 AM4/4/12
to
the same thing as 'sticking up'.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
calvin
Apr 4, 2012, 10:28:11 AM4/4/12
to
On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:12:04 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On Apr 4, 9:54 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:53:23 AM UTC-4, Heynonny wrote:
> > > I want to hear what calvin says about this.
> > > ...
> >
> > Thanks, but I really don't want to see the movie.
> > I have no problem with what you said in your post
> > here about McCain. I'm no big fan of his, but I
> > voted for him and Palin, and I'm always glad to
> > hear him stick up for her.
>
> I'm not sure that defending her as a victim of *his* error is quite
> the same thing as 'sticking up'.
McCain made no error in choosing her, though some errors were
> On Apr 4, 9:54 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:53:23 AM UTC-4, Heynonny wrote:
> > > I want to hear what calvin says about this.
> > > ...
> >
> > Thanks, but I really don't want to see the movie.
> > I have no problem with what you said in your post
> > here about McCain. I'm no big fan of his, but I
> > voted for him and Palin, and I'm always glad to
> > hear him stick up for her.
>
> I'm not sure that defending her as a victim of *his* error is quite
> the same thing as 'sticking up'.
made by his campaign managers in the way they handled her.
Sarah Palin is not a victim. She has been the focus of
unrelenting vilification by the left and their media for
nearly four years now, but all that has only made her
stronger politically for whenever she decides to make her
next move.
Bill Anderson
Apr 4, 2012, 3:15:13 PM4/4/12
to
On 4/3/2012 6:35 PM, calvin wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
>> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
>> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
>
> No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
> in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
> to see another hit job on her.
>
The surprise (to me, anyway) is that it isn't a hit job.
> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
>> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
>> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
>
> No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
> in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
> to see another hit job on her.
>
Joan in GB-W
Apr 4, 2012, 4:16:01 PM4/4/12
to
"calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:29780106.82.1333549692068.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynuu4...
She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did she
know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve Board.
Yep, she was a fine candidate.
Red Cloud
Apr 4, 2012, 4:41:20 PM4/4/12
to
On Apr 3, 3:18 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 2:47 PM, Stone me wrote:
>
> > Can't wait for this to become a "past movie."
>
> > Anyone seen it, and care to comment?
>
I do not have any foggiest idea who the hell Sarah Palin is.
> On 4/3/2012 2:47 PM, Stone me wrote:
>
> > Can't wait for this to become a "past movie."
>
> > Anyone seen it, and care to comment?
>
All I know it's politician HER!!!
Can you imagine living in nation a politician is like a celebrity?
American-born jackass just can't get away from pandering to the
celebrity elite.
Oh one more thing I miss about HER. She is a definitely a member of
elite!
Tom
Apr 4, 2012, 9:31:48 PM4/4/12
to
Tom
Steve Newport
Apr 5, 2012, 6:48:25 AM4/5/12
to
From: jjk...@aol.com (Joan in GB-W)
SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
**********************************
"March went out like a lion, a whippin' up the water in the bay..."--
Oscar Hammerstein II
She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
-----------------------------------
she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
**********************************
"March went out like a lion, a whippin' up the water in the bay..."--
Oscar Hammerstein II
Steve Newport
Apr 5, 2012, 9:54:59 AM4/5/12
to
From: billand...@yahoo.com (Bill Anderson) I saw it and came away
SN: I agree.
somewhat gratified by the way the film treated Sarah Palin. She is after
all a wife and mother and, even more important, a human being who
deserves her dignity. She was also abysmally unprepared to become Vice
President of the United States, a fact that according to the movie
became apparent to John McCain and his team only after they had hastily
selected her. GAME CHANGE is fair, I think. It shows how Sarah Palin
all a wife and mother and, even more important, a human being who
deserves her dignity. She was also abysmally unprepared to become Vice
President of the United States, a fact that according to the movie
became apparent to John McCain and his team only after they had hastily
gave the McCain campaign everything it wanted from her with regard to
razzle-dazzle fireworks. She truly energized the base; she can work an
audience; she became a star. At what she can do, Sarah Palin is very,
razzle-dazzle fireworks. She truly energized the base; she can work an
very good. But the movie makes a convincing case that the Governor is
lacking in the education and intellectual curiosity the country requires
in a President. If you're interested in American politics, you really
lacking in the education and intellectual curiosity the country requires
ought to watch GAME CHANGE.
---------------------------------------
SN: I agree.
calvin
Apr 5, 2012, 11:26:36 AM4/5/12
to
contemporary with the actors? (Julianne Moore may be
older than Palin.) Palin, McCain, and everyone else
involved are around and can be interviewed. A movie
about Margaret Thatcher, for example, makes sense even
though she is still alive because her politically active
years were decades ago.
Using actors portraying McCain and Palin can do nothing
but muddle the issues, even if the movie is sympathetic
or empathetic. At the certer we have McCain and Palin,
alive and available for interviews. Over that is another
layer represented by the book, including the author's
prejudices, pro or con. Then there is another layer
represented by the screenplay writer and director, with
their prejudices, pro or con. And finally, on top of that
is the layer of the actors' portrayals, with their
prejudices, pro or con.
Why on earth would anybody think such a process is useful
when the principals are alive and available?
reilloc
Apr 5, 2012, 12:37:55 PM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/2012 10:26 AM, calvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:15:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>> On 4/3/2012 6:35 PM, calvin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>>> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
>>>> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
>>>> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
>>>
>>> No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
>>> in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
>>> to see another hit job on her.
>>>
>> The surprise (to me, anyway) is that it isn't a hit job.
>
> What is the point of making a movie about a person
> contemporary with the actors?
Well, dumb old man, it's this way--and I'll type slowly so you can
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:15:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>> On 4/3/2012 6:35 PM, calvin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>>> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
>>>> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
>>>> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
>>>
>>> No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
>>> in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
>>> to see another hit job on her.
>>>
>> The surprise (to me, anyway) is that it isn't a hit job.
>
> What is the point of making a movie about a person
> contemporary with the actors?
follow: movie making is a business. Now, I know you don't understand
that that phrase means; you've shown that repeatedly. A "business" is a
human enterprise established to attempt to produce wealth.
Any of this sounding the least bit familiar yet?
> (Julianne Moore may be
> older than Palin.) Palin, McCain, and everyone else
> involved are around and can be interviewed. A movie
> about Margaret Thatcher, for example, makes sense even
> though she is still alive because her politically active
> years were decades ago.
>
> Using actors portraying McCain and Palin can do nothing
> but muddle the issues, even if the movie is sympathetic
> or empathetic. At the certer we have McCain and Palin,
> alive and available for interviews. Over that is another
> layer represented by the book, including the author's
> prejudices, pro or con. Then there is another layer
> represented by the screenplay writer and director, with
> their prejudices, pro or con. And finally, on top of that
> is the layer of the actors' portrayals, with their
> prejudices, pro or con.
>
> Why on earth would anybody think such a process is useful
> when the principals are alive and available?
the program.
LNC
moviePig
Apr 5, 2012, 1:12:31 PM4/5/12
to
general, cooperate -- wish to control both the process and the
outcome. And therein lies, from the public's point of view anyway,
'the point'.
calvin
Apr 5, 2012, 1:40:12 PM4/5/12
to
even to some extent the actors, -don't- wish to control
both the process and the outcome? What a hoot.
moviePig
Apr 5, 2012, 2:03:05 PM4/5/12
to
why not just browse the candidates' campaign materials? Getting an
outsider's perspective always means leaving the inner circle.
unklbob
Apr 5, 2012, 2:35:12 PM4/5/12
to
thoughtful writing on any of the political boards.
calvin
Apr 5, 2012, 3:03:16 PM4/5/12
to
that I suggested can be an outsider, and just as likely
to be fair as writers or filmmakers. I wasn't
arguing for biased coverage, pro or con. I was arguing
for simplicity and directness, instead of several layers
of possible bias and confusion that I outlined. And I
was arguing that we have Sarah Palin herself to look at,
without any need for Tina Fey or Julianne Moore, who are
her contemporaries.
And why did you say "If you want self-serving whitewash ..."
when I clearly inserted "pro or con" whenever I used
the word 'prejudiced'? Your prejudice is evident;
and I'm not climbing on a cross; I'm talking about YOU.
moviePig
Apr 5, 2012, 3:29:36 PM4/5/12
to
race, 'self-serving whitewash' is what you'll get from the horse's
mouth. Now, if you want to skip a docudrama you think likely
unfavorable to Palin, then feel free ...but don't pretend it's because
only She will give us The Truth.
calvin
Apr 5, 2012, 3:37:48 PM4/5/12
to rei...@gmail.com
that all movies are made for the sake of business.
The one I have in mind I just learned today, watching
a DVD documentary about movie directors. Spielberg
did not accept payment for 'Schindler's List', saying
that it would be blood money. Others who worked on
the movie were paid, but it was Spielberg's movie, which
got made because of his motivation to make it, and that
motivation was not financial.
calvin
Apr 5, 2012, 3:40:21 PM4/5/12
to
otherwise, and then clarified. So the hell with it.
Think and say what you like.
Invid Fan
Apr 5, 2012, 8:58:00 PM4/5/12
to
In article
<8921538.844.1333639597019.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36>,
dead.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
<8921538.844.1333639597019.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbv36>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Why on earth would anybody think such a process is useful
> when the principals are alive and available?
I do agree there should be no movies about real people until they're
> Why on earth would anybody think such a process is useful
> when the principals are alive and available?
dead.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Tom
Apr 5, 2012, 9:12:09 PM4/5/12
to
she could.
This is a very good movie and portrays Palin in a... human... light.
If you choose to not see it, you're missing a gem.
Tom
Tom
Apr 5, 2012, 9:15:54 PM4/5/12
to
I doubt Universal morphed into a not-for-profit business while SL was
in release.
Tom
Tom
Apr 5, 2012, 9:18:27 PM4/5/12
to
from your posts as did moviePig.
Tom
Tom
Apr 5, 2012, 9:25:45 PM4/5/12
to
On Apr 5, 10:26 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:15:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > On 4/3/2012 6:35 PM, calvin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > >> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
> > >> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
> > >> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
>
> > > No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
> > > in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
> > > to see another hit job on her.
>
> > The surprise (to me, anyway) is that it isn't a hit job.
>
> What is the point of making a movie about a person
> contemporary with the actors? (Julianne Moore may be
> older than Palin.) Palin, McCain, and everyone else
> involved are around and can be interviewed.
That would be boring and their handlers would insist on vetting the
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:15:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > On 4/3/2012 6:35 PM, calvin wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
> > >> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
> > >> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
> > >> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
>
> > > No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
> > > in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
> > > to see another hit job on her.
>
> > The surprise (to me, anyway) is that it isn't a hit job.
>
> What is the point of making a movie about a person
> contemporary with the actors? (Julianne Moore may be
> older than Palin.) Palin, McCain, and everyone else
> involved are around and can be interviewed.
questions long before tape started to roll.
>A movie
> about Margaret Thatcher, for example, makes sense even
> though she is still alive because her politically active
> years were decades ago.
>
> Using actors portraying McCain and Palin can do nothing
> but muddle the issues, even if the movie is sympathetic
> or empathetic. At the certer we have McCain and Palin,
> alive and available for interviews. Over that is another
> layer represented by the book, including the author's
> prejudices, pro or con. Then there is another layer
> represented by the screenplay writer and director, with
> their prejudices, pro or con. And finally, on top of that
> is the layer of the actors' portrayals, with their
> prejudices, pro or con.
you wouldn't be able to see their tell. Can actually spot an actor's
political leanings from watching their performances?
>
> Why on earth would anybody think such a process is useful
> when the principals are alive and available?
documentary and I doubt either principal can run lines well.
Tom
Bill Anderson
Apr 5, 2012, 10:56:18 PM4/5/12
to
On 4/5/2012 11:26 AM, calvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:15:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>> On 4/3/2012 6:35 PM, calvin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>>> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
>>>> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
>>>> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
>>>
>>> No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
>>> in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
>>> to see another hit job on her.
>>>
>> The surprise (to me, anyway) is that it isn't a hit job.
>
> What is the point of making a movie about a person
> contemporary with the actors? (Julianne Moore may be
> older than Palin.) Palin, McCain, and everyone else
> involved are around and can be interviewed. A movie
> about Margaret Thatcher, for example, makes sense even
> though she is still alive because her politically active
> years were decades ago.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I understand what you're getting at. I
> On Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:15:13 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>> On 4/3/2012 6:35 PM, calvin wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 3, 2012 6:18:26 PM UTC-4, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>>> ... If you're interested in American politics, you really
>>>> ought to watch GAME CHANGE. Just be prepared for the possibility that
>>>> you won't look upon Sarah Palin in exactly the same way ever again.
>>>
>>> No thanks. I saw nothing new, pro or con, about Palin
>>> in what you posted, and definitely don't intend to pay
>>> to see another hit job on her.
>>>
>> The surprise (to me, anyway) is that it isn't a hit job.
>
> What is the point of making a movie about a person
> contemporary with the actors? (Julianne Moore may be
> older than Palin.) Palin, McCain, and everyone else
> involved are around and can be interviewed. A movie
> about Margaret Thatcher, for example, makes sense even
> though she is still alive because her politically active
> years were decades ago.
just don't understand why you think it's important to make the point.
I mean, contemporary biographical movies are nothing new. I don't
remember complaints about Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman being the
wrong age or otherwise inappropriate to play Woodward and Bernstein in
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. They were all contemporaries. In fact, I just
checked Wikipedia and both Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are older
than Woodward and Bernstein. Who cares? ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN came
out about four years after the events of the 1972 campaign; GAME CHANGE
has come out about four years after the 2008 campaign. And there's a
long list of biographical movies that have been released while their
subjects still lived, with varying degrees of contemporaniosityness,
e.g. (off the top of my head) ALI, SERGEANT YORK, ERIN BROCKOVICH,
RAGING BULL, THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS ... it's a substantial list. So
what's the "point" of making them? They are all fascinating stories
that make good movies. Of course studios make movies from these
stories. People write books about the stories too, and magazine
articles and you name it. If it's a good story and if there's a good
script and you think there's an audience, you certainly don't wait
around politely for the principals to die off. You interview the
principals and the other key players and you write the book and you
adapt it to make the movie and those who feel they've been wronged can
show evidence to contradict any lies. (Something that seems not to be
happening in the case of GAME CHANGE.)
>
> Using actors portraying McCain and Palin can do nothing
> but muddle the issues, even if the movie is sympathetic
> or empathetic. At the certer we have McCain and Palin,
> alive and available for interviews. Over that is another
> layer represented by the book, including the author's
> prejudices, pro or con. Then there is another layer
> represented by the screenplay writer and director, with
> their prejudices, pro or con. And finally, on top of that
> is the layer of the actors' portrayals, with their
> prejudices, pro or con.
>
> Why on earth would anybody think such a process is useful
> when the principals are alive and available?
and I and everybody else value. Actually, GAME CHANGE the book by John
Heilemann and Mark Halperin covered lots more than just the McCain/Palin
campaign. Based on hundreds of those interviews, it's full of juicy
highly readable behind the scene embarrassing details about how Hillary
Clinton wasn't sure whether she could control Bill, and about the
egotistical John Edwards and his not-so-saintly wife Elizabeth, about
how different the calm, professorial, stage-managed Obama we see is from
the man in private. Authors write books like this because they know
people are eager to read this stuff. And like good capitalists, the
authors had better ensure that what they write can withstand scrutiny,
else they'll turn out disgraced and untrusted like that guy who spiced
up his one-man play with exaggerations and lies about Apple. (Actually,
he's supposed to bring his show back to the Woolly Mammoth Theater here
in DC. It's one block from my condo, but that liar won't get a dime
from me and now I'm totally off the subject -- never mind, you didn't
read this detour.)
So why doesn't GAME CHANGE include all those other stories? Why pick
one "plot" thread from the book and ignore the others? I'm pretty sure
the Palin story was the most compelling, the central character the most
complex among those to choose from. Sarah Palin's star outshone nearly
everybody else's in the campaign, certainly Biden's, and arguably even
McCain's. (OK, not Obama's.)
Why does the movie have to be "useful?" Useful for what? Persuasion?
Changing people's minds about Palin and the 2008 campaign? I didn't see
propaganda in the movie. OK, I suppose the movie won't go over very
well for anybody who holds an ironclad immutable opinion about Sarah
Palin that's way out there on either end of the love/hate spectrum.
Those who love her probably won't enjoy seeing her deficiencies exposed
and those who hate her will resent feeling empathy for a very decent
woman trying to cope as best as she can with what was for her an
impossible situation. I'm not one of those people, and I really enjoyed
the movie. Clearly YMMV.
Red Cloud
Apr 6, 2012, 12:04:41 AM4/6/12
to
what is
bloody fucking point making film about corrupted politicians. In USA
polarized
political scene, one of their side one is chosen by God. Americans
were so bloody brainwashed that they treat the politician like some
kind of righteous
superhero. Politician are like movie star and celebrity. Remember
that every
president have published a book about themselves or their worldview.
Clinton supports think Clinton was the best one and Bush fans believe
Bush
is the man for the job. Sarah Palin??? I dunno even know what the
hell HER done for American politic. I dunno get it and I don't give a
damn and I do not
have to find out.
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 12:08:30 AM4/6/12
to
detail. You have convinced me that there is plenty
of precedent for making movies about contempory
personalities. And I'm willing to believe that this
movie is as fair as such a movie can be expected to be.
But I still don't want to see it. I've seen so much
pro and con on Sarah Palin in the last four years that
I doubt that the movie has anything to teach me about her.
And I don't want to see Julianne Moore playing her. If
Tina Fey didn't despise Palin so much I might like to see
her playing Palin straight; but Tina said in 2008 that she
hoped after the election she would never have to think
about that woman again (paraphrasing).
I don't worship Palin, but I have a loathing for the smug
people who have been trashing her for the last four years.
I don't think people like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann,
Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, or any other of the legions who
have smeared her are one bit smarter than she is. Palin's
problem is like Bush's problem was; she can't talk; off the
cuff, at least not to a hostile or skeptical interviewer.
But that has nothing to do with intelligence. I think she
and Bush are as intelligent as any Democrat you can name.
But I want the next Republican President to be able to talk,
so I'm not looking forward to Palin running in 2016 (assuming
Obama wins this year). It's a shame, because I agree with
her politically, and it would be great for the first woman
president to be a conservative.
Bill Anderson
Apr 6, 2012, 12:12:28 AM4/6/12
to
NoBody
Apr 6, 2012, 6:28:44 AM4/6/12
to
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 06:48:25 -0400, Newpor...@webtv.net (Steve
Newport) wrote:
>From: jjk...@aol.com (Joan in GB-W)
>She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
>she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
>Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
>-----------------------------------
>SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
>
Credible cite?
Newport) wrote:
>From: jjk...@aol.com (Joan in GB-W)
>She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
>she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
>Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
>-----------------------------------
>SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
>
Bill Anderson
Apr 6, 2012, 1:30:29 PM4/6/12
to
One jarring revelation in which the movie reaches beyond the book comes
when [Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign's chief strategist], makes a
query to assess nominee Palin's awareness of foreign affairs, asking
McCain's VP pick how she would respond in the White House to news of
waning British support for the war in Iraq.
The Palin character, sitting opposite Schmidt in a campaign bus, says
McCain would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the queen of
England on the subject. Flabbergasted, the Schmidt character informs her
the queen is not the head of government. Palin asks who is. He informs
her that the country has a prime minister.
[Danny Strong, writer of the film] said he uncovered that additional
episode during the 25 interviews he conducted with principals from Team
McCain. Schmidt confirmed the account.
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 1:42:41 PM4/6/12
to
Palin has had four years to learn stuff since her
sudden thrust into the spotlight in 2008.
In our generation we had better schools and learned
all sorts of stuff that later dumbed-down schools
have not taught kids, including Palin when she was in
them. Judge her knowledge by what she knows now,
not by what she knew four years ago.
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2012, 3:10:51 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 1:42:41 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>
> In our generation we had better schools and learned
> all sorts of stuff that later dumbed-down schools
> have not taught kids, including Palin when she was in
> them. Judge her knowledge by what she knows now,
> not by what she knew four years ago.
Never let your schooling interfere with your education, as Mark Twain said. To blame anyone of Palin's age and resources on "bad" schools is absurd. That's the lamest excuse I ever heard. Let's hope she's learned something or other recently as we all should have. Whether she can overcome her know-nothing image is going to be difficult but she actively dug the hole that she's in. Let's face it, part of the charm of a populist is their disregard for book learning and their disdain for eggheads.
>
> In our generation we had better schools and learned
> all sorts of stuff that later dumbed-down schools
> have not taught kids, including Palin when she was in
> them. Judge her knowledge by what she knows now,
> not by what she knew four years ago.
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 4:21:19 PM4/6/12
to
an 'occupy' rally and asked college kids the same
things that Palin didn't know, they wouldn't know them
either.
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2012, 4:36:42 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 4:21:19 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>
> Your point is well taken, but I betcha if you went to
> an 'occupy' rally and asked college kids the same
> things that Palin didn't know, they wouldn't know them
> either.
Like whether they can see Russia from their roof? And were any of these "kids" being proffered as the next vice president? It's a pointless analogy anyway as supposedly the occupy movements is really "Politics for Dummies"? But a revealing side-swipe and another attempt at distraction.
>
> Your point is well taken, but I betcha if you went to
> an 'occupy' rally and asked college kids the same
> things that Palin didn't know, they wouldn't know them
> either.
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 4:48:55 PM4/6/12
to
"Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
which is true.
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2012, 4:54:34 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 4:48:55 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> Speaking of side-swipes:
>
> "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
>
> You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> which is true.
You just never get the humor, calvin, and even the occupy "kids" know it's from SNL. The point was that the rooftop quote although untrue contains the truth of how she is viewed by many and not just elitist liberals back east.
> Speaking of side-swipes:
>
> "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
>
> You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> which is true.
William Hale
Apr 6, 2012, 5:25:10 PM4/6/12
to
In article
<26087198.1202.1333745335980.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlq17>,
But she said "you can see Russia from Alaska" as a reason that she has
experience in foreign affairs. I think the context is something like the
following. Interviewer asks "Some people question your lack of
experience in foreign affairs." Palin replies "Well, you can see Russia
from Alaska."
<26087198.1202.1333745335980.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlq17>,
experience in foreign affairs. I think the context is something like the
following. Interviewer asks "Some people question your lack of
experience in foreign affairs." Palin replies "Well, you can see Russia
from Alaska."
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 5:33:18 PM4/6/12
to
In past replies to same message as above, I've given you several real-
life examples of of outstanding recent college grads who are making
valuable contributions to our society. Do you actually know any
college students or recent grads who know as little as Palin?
Please name one.
If you can't, please stop declaring our current generation of college
students and recent grads brain dead. We're still educating the best
and the brightest.
Tom
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 5:35:11 PM4/6/12
to
Russians fly over Alaska.
I get that you like her, but defending her isn't going to make her
smarter or change history.
Tom
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 5:40:04 PM4/6/12
to
have learned any WW II history from "Pearl Harbor."
> And I don't want to see Julianne Moore playing her.
> If
> Tina Fey didn't despise Palin so much I might like to see
> her playing Palin straight;
>but Tina said in 2008 that she
> hoped after the election she would never have to think
> about that woman again (paraphrasing).
>
> I don't worship Palin, but I have a loathing for the smug
> people who have been trashing her for the last four years.
> I don't think people like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann,
> Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, or any other of the legions who
> have smeared her are one bit smarter than she is. Palin's
> problem is like Bush's problem was; she can't talk; off the
> cuff, at least not to a hostile or skeptical interviewer.
> But that has nothing to do with intelligence. I think she
> and Bush are as intelligent as any Democrat you can name.
> But I want the next Republican President to be able to talk,
> so I'm not looking forward to Palin running in 2016 (assuming
> Obama wins this year). It's a shame, because I agree with
> her politically, and it would be great for the first woman
> president to be a conservative.
Tom
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 5:40:19 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:25:10 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
think you have oversimplified the exchange. I don't remember
it well enough to prove my belief, however, and would welcome
a transcript if you can provide it.
> calvin wrote:
> > Speaking of side-swipes:
> >
> > "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
> >
> > You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> > and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> > repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> > that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> > which is true.
>
> But she said "you can see Russia from Alaska" as a reason that she has
> experience in foreign affairs. I think the context is something like the
> following. Interviewer asks "Some people question your lack of
> experience in foreign affairs." Palin replies "Well, you can see Russia
> from Alaska."
I believe that was in the Charlie Gibson interview, but I
> > Speaking of side-swipes:
> >
> > "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
> >
> > You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> > and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> > repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> > that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> > which is true.
>
> But she said "you can see Russia from Alaska" as a reason that she has
> experience in foreign affairs. I think the context is something like the
> following. Interviewer asks "Some people question your lack of
> experience in foreign affairs." Palin replies "Well, you can see Russia
> from Alaska."
think you have oversimplified the exchange. I don't remember
it well enough to prove my belief, however, and would welcome
a transcript if you can provide it.
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 5:44:10 PM4/6/12
to
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 5:53:24 PM4/6/12
to
William. But I'm used to it, so it's not really amazing.
> I get that you like her, but defending her isn't going to make her
> smarter or change history.
the criterion for what we say here, then we all might as well
shut up. She's smarter than those who belittle her, though. If
that includes you, no offense was intended.
William Hale
Apr 6, 2012, 6:02:07 PM4/6/12
to
In article
<29995737.705.1333748419870.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynhs12>,
From the web, I get:
==========================
PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with
Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving
him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be
committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia
to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic
country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on
Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That
manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some
steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward
a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to
keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border
between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They
are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with
them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door
neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in
Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is
and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good
relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not
repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies,
pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their
benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be
getting along.
==========================
As someone else mentioned in this thread, her explanation to Couric is
even worse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc
<29995737.705.1333748419870.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynhs12>,
==========================
PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with
Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving
him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be
committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia
to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic
country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on
Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That
manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some
steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward
a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to
keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border
between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They
are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with
them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door
neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in
Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is
and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good
relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not
repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies,
pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their
benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be
getting along.
==========================
As someone else mentioned in this thread, her explanation to Couric is
even worse:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 6:12:21 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 6:02:07 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> ...
your charge in the previous post, or that it is any worse
than many replies we hear from politicians, both Democrat and
Republican. Maybe the fuller transcript that Tom provided
will be more enlightening.
> As someone else mentioned in this thread, her explanation to Couric is
> even worse:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc
Please, let's not go off into the Couric interview.
I have more things I want to do tonight than bang on
this keyboard.
> ...
> GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in
> Georgia?
>
> PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is
> and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good
> relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not
> repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies,
> pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their
> benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be
> getting along.
> ==========================
Garbled speech here, but I don't see it as upholding
> Georgia?
>
> PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is
> and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good
> relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not
> repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies,
> pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their
> benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be
> getting along.
> ==========================
your charge in the previous post, or that it is any worse
than many replies we hear from politicians, both Democrat and
Republican. Maybe the fuller transcript that Tom provided
will be more enlightening.
> As someone else mentioned in this thread, her explanation to Couric is
> even worse:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc
I have more things I want to do tonight than bang on
this keyboard.
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 6:13:10 PM4/6/12
to
On Apr 6, 4:53 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:35:11 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 3:48 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 6, 2012 4:36:42 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 6, 2012 4:21:19 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>
> > > > > Your point is well taken, but I betcha if you went to
> > > > > an 'occupy' rally and asked college kids the same
> > > > > things that Palin didn't know, they wouldn't know them
> > > > > either.
>
> > > > Like whether they can see Russia from their roof? And were any of these "kids" being proffered as the next vice president? It's a pointless analogy anyway as supposedly the occupy movements is really "Politics for Dummies"? But a revealing side-swipe and another attempt at distraction.
>
> > > Speaking of side-swipes:
>
> > > "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
>
> > > You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> > > and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> > > repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> > > that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> > > which is true.
>
> > You're leaving out the real- life part in which Palin said the
> > Russians fly over Alaska.
>
> It's amazing that you think I was leaving something out, and not
> William. But I'm used to it, so it's not really amazing.
Huh?
> On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:35:11 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 3:48 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 6, 2012 4:36:42 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 6, 2012 4:21:19 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>
> > > > > Your point is well taken, but I betcha if you went to
> > > > > an 'occupy' rally and asked college kids the same
> > > > > things that Palin didn't know, they wouldn't know them
> > > > > either.
>
> > > > Like whether they can see Russia from their roof? And were any of these "kids" being proffered as the next vice president? It's a pointless analogy anyway as supposedly the occupy movements is really "Politics for Dummies"? But a revealing side-swipe and another attempt at distraction.
>
> > > Speaking of side-swipes:
>
> > > "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
>
> > > You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> > > and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> > > repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> > > that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> > > which is true.
>
> > You're leaving out the real- life part in which Palin said the
> > Russians fly over Alaska.
>
> It's amazing that you think I was leaving something out, and not
> William. But I'm used to it, so it's not really amazing.
>
> > I get that you like her, but defending her isn't going to make her
> > smarter or change history.
>
> I like her as a person. If potential for changing history is
> the criterion for what we say here, then we all might as well
> shut up. She's smarter than those who belittle her, though. If
> that includes you, no offense was intended.
than me.
Tom
William Hale
Apr 6, 2012, 6:31:39 PM4/6/12
to
In article
<25338551.731.1333750341490.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynhs12>,
of Russia gives her any insight for foreign experience?
Again the starting point:
============================
You don't see that Palin is just explaining what "proximity" means? She
is not explaining what benefit that proximity gives her to be able to
claim that it helps her experience in foreign affairs.
>
> > As someone else mentioned in this thread, her explanation to Couric is
> > even worse:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc
>
> Please, let's not go off into the Couric interview.
> I have more things I want to do tonight than bang on
> this keyboard.
Again, in this video, Palin is just explaining what "proximity" means in
the beginning part. When Couric sees Palin doesn't get the question, she
helps Palin out by prompting with the answer "are you involved with
negotiations with the Russians?" Palin says yes and should have left it
at that, but instead Palin goes into a weird talk about Putin etc.
<25338551.731.1333750341490.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynhs12>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2012 6:02:07 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > ...
> > GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in
> > Georgia?
> >
> > PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is
> > and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good
> > relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not
> > repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies,
> > pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their
> > benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be
> > getting along.
> > ==========================
>
> Garbled speech here, but I don't see it as upholding
> your charge in the previous post, or that it is any worse
> than many replies we hear from politicians, both Democrat and
> Republican. Maybe the fuller transcript that Tom provided
> will be more enlightening.
But, don't you see that she is evading the question of why the proximity
> On Friday, April 6, 2012 6:02:07 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > ...
> > GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in
> > Georgia?
> >
> > PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is
> > and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good
> > relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not
> > repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies,
> > pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their
> > benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be
> > getting along.
> > ==========================
>
> Garbled speech here, but I don't see it as upholding
> your charge in the previous post, or that it is any worse
> than many replies we hear from politicians, both Democrat and
> Republican. Maybe the fuller transcript that Tom provided
> will be more enlightening.
of Russia gives her any insight for foreign experience?
Again the starting point:
============================
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last
couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
============================
couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia
from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
You don't see that Palin is just explaining what "proximity" means? She
is not explaining what benefit that proximity gives her to be able to
claim that it helps her experience in foreign affairs.
>
> > As someone else mentioned in this thread, her explanation to Couric is
> > even worse:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Vh6WDmb-Rc
>
> Please, let's not go off into the Couric interview.
> I have more things I want to do tonight than bang on
> this keyboard.
the beginning part. When Couric sees Palin doesn't get the question, she
helps Palin out by prompting with the answer "are you involved with
negotiations with the Russians?" Palin says yes and should have left it
at that, but instead Palin goes into a weird talk about Putin etc.
moviePig
Apr 6, 2012, 6:47:20 PM4/6/12
to
But I confess that, if Calvin or anyone can show that the 'occupy Wall
St.' folks agree with Palin that the Queen runs England, I'll be quite
dismayed.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2012, 7:19:11 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:53:24 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> It's amazing that you think I was leaving something out, and not
> William. But I'm used to it, so it's not really amazing.
>
Quote
> It's amazing that you think I was leaving something out, and not
> William. But I'm used to it, so it's not really amazing.
>
CHARLES GIBSON (ABC NEWS)
(Off-camera) What insight into Russian actions particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of this state give you?
GOVERNOR SARAH PALIN (REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
They’re our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.
End quote
So from some island in the Bering Sea, Palin can see Russia and be miraculously granted insight to recent Russian actions. Quote and context. What you don't get is that Tina Fey was being kind.
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 8:05:48 PM4/6/12
to
the future of humankind.
Tom
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2012, 8:18:05 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 8:05:48 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
>
> Not only would I, too, be quite dismayed, I'd be scared shitless about
> the future of humankind.
>
Why? Is being misinformed any worse than being a Cro-Magnon? They got along fine. Civilized peoples used to believe in witches and gods and they still got on. Humankind has engaged in wars, genocide, and numerous other travesties and still go on. The one saving grace to the possibility of an all-out nuclear war is that somehow humanity will fuck it up because the guy with the other key is at the beach or the guy who needs to push the button is on break or the guy who reads the launch codes is dyslexic. It's depressing but humanity will survive in all its petty glory.
>
> Not only would I, too, be quite dismayed, I'd be scared shitless about
> the future of humankind.
>
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 8:34:06 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 8:05:48 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:47 pm, moviePig
to 'occupy' rallies and asking questions about government
and current issues. But since you don't watch FOX News clips,
but instead see only fawning coverage of the darling young
protesters and antiquated folk singers, you'll never have
to be dismayed or 'scared shitless' about the future of
humankind (as I am).
> On Apr 6, 5:47 pm, moviePig
> Not only would I, too, be quite dismayed, I'd be scared shitless about
> the future of humankind.
There were cases last fall of evil FOX News reporters going
> the future of humankind.
to 'occupy' rallies and asking questions about government
and current issues. But since you don't watch FOX News clips,
but instead see only fawning coverage of the darling young
protesters and antiquated folk singers, you'll never have
to be dismayed or 'scared shitless' about the future of
humankind (as I am).
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 8:41:39 PM4/6/12
to
> but instead see only fawning coverage
>of the darling young
> protesters and antiquated folk singers, you'll never have
> to be dismayed or 'scared shitless' about the future of
> humankind (as I am).
Tom
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 8:45:08 PM4/6/12
to
evolutionary treadmill is just what we need, but now you've got me
thinking about the all of the knuckleheads at the beach, on break or
who have dyslexia! LOL!
Where's my club? I need to kill dinner.
Tom
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 9:28:30 PM4/6/12
to
coverage. I saw mostly Keith Olbermann's nightly obsession
with 'occupy' all last fall. He's gone from 'Current TV' now,
but the whole time he was there I watched the nightly YouTube
clips of his show, still named 'Countdown', after he left MSNBC.
And the 'occupy' protestors and pro-occupy pundits that he
had on his show every night seemed totally stupid to me
in their lack of focus on any issues, but rather having just a
generalized outrage toward everyone who had anything or did
anything productive. I used to be like them in a way, back
in the late 60s and early 70, but we airheads at least knew
what we were protesting. Today's airheads don't even know
that, except that they're the have-nots protesting the haves.
They had better hope that they fail, because if the country
did go communist or some equivalent, they would be dismayed
to find out that they had to work. The slogan was 'workers
of the world unite', not 'spoiled brats of the world party'.
Bill Anderson
Apr 6, 2012, 9:41:35 PM4/6/12
to
have "invented" the internet become repeated so often that they're
believed by many.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
William Hale
Apr 6, 2012, 9:44:00 PM4/6/12
to
In article
<17345340.1526.1333762110064.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai14>,
The occupiers are against the corruption in Wall Street, big banks, and
big corporations in controlling politicians to do their bidding. The
occupiers are not against making money or the businesses themselves:
just corruptions that might be in them.
<17345340.1526.1333762110064.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai14>,
big corporations in controlling politicians to do their bidding. The
occupiers are not against making money or the businesses themselves:
just corruptions that might be in them.
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 9:59:28 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 9:44:00 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> The occupiers are against the corruption in Wall Street, big banks, and
> big corporations in controlling politicians to do their bidding. The
> occupiers are not against making money or the businesses themselves:
> just corruptions that might be in them.
Everybody's against corruption, but I think you're giving
> The occupiers are against the corruption in Wall Street, big banks, and
> big corporations in controlling politicians to do their bidding. The
> occupiers are not against making money or the businesses themselves:
> just corruptions that might be in them.
the occupiers too much credit, assuming they're as focused
as you are. I don't think they could give you examples of
corruption, because they don't know enough to do so, not
because corruption doesn't exist. All they know is that
Wall Street, banks, and corporations are bad, period.
That's what they have been taught to believe, and they
want to believe it. Whatever they need excuses for, that
belief habit provides them.
William Hale
Apr 6, 2012, 10:14:00 PM4/6/12
to
In article
<27180205.1577.1333763968482.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhy1>,
occupiers about Monsanto. The "small" farmers are being put out of
business because Monsanto is suing them for using Monsanto's genetically
modified seed (the situation is that if 1% of a seed has Monsanto's
modification then Monsanto "owns" the seed, where the 1% is due to cross
pollination and not that the farmer is stealing the seed, but rather the
modified seed is coming onto the farmer's farm unwillingly).
> All they know is that
> Wall Street, banks, and corporations are bad, period.
Bad because they make money: do you really believe that is what
occupiers think?
> That's what they have been taught to believe, and they
> want to believe it.
Who are teaching them that?
Why do they want to believe it?
> Whatever they need excuses for, that
> belief habit provides them.
Excuse for what? That it is hard to get a job? That they don't want to
work?
<27180205.1577.1333763968482.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbhy1>,
calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2012 9:44:00 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > The occupiers are against the corruption in Wall Street, big banks, and
> > big corporations in controlling politicians to do their bidding. The
> > occupiers are not against making money or the businesses themselves:
> > just corruptions that might be in them.
>
> Everybody's against corruption, but I think you're giving
> the occupiers too much credit, assuming they're as focused
> as you are. I don't think they could give you examples of
> corruption, because they don't know enough to do so, not
> because corruption doesn't exist.
Besides the well known examples of corruption, I learned from the
> On Friday, April 6, 2012 9:44:00 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > The occupiers are against the corruption in Wall Street, big banks, and
> > big corporations in controlling politicians to do their bidding. The
> > occupiers are not against making money or the businesses themselves:
> > just corruptions that might be in them.
>
> Everybody's against corruption, but I think you're giving
> the occupiers too much credit, assuming they're as focused
> as you are. I don't think they could give you examples of
> corruption, because they don't know enough to do so, not
> because corruption doesn't exist.
occupiers about Monsanto. The "small" farmers are being put out of
business because Monsanto is suing them for using Monsanto's genetically
modified seed (the situation is that if 1% of a seed has Monsanto's
modification then Monsanto "owns" the seed, where the 1% is due to cross
pollination and not that the farmer is stealing the seed, but rather the
modified seed is coming onto the farmer's farm unwillingly).
> All they know is that
> Wall Street, banks, and corporations are bad, period.
occupiers think?
> That's what they have been taught to believe, and they
> want to believe it.
Why do they want to believe it?
> Whatever they need excuses for, that
> belief habit provides them.
work?
moviePig
Apr 6, 2012, 10:27:11 PM4/6/12
to
and snag a few camera-hungry airheads, I'll of course find *less*
alarming. But, I suppose we're now pretending that FoxNews didn't/
wouldn't...
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2012, 10:35:44 PM4/6/12
to
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 10:44:42 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 10:14:00 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
as possible, and their ruthlessness, no matter what
harm they do, so the line goes.
> > That's what they have been taught to believe, and they
> > want to believe it.
>
> Who are teaching them that?
Grade schools, high schools, colleges, and the media.
> Why do they want to believe it?
My next sentence:
> > Whatever they need excuses for, that
> > belief habit provides them.
>
> Excuse for what? That it is hard to get a job?
That it is hard to get the kind of job they are
entitled to without having to prepare for it.
> That they don't want to work?
They want to work in their chosen fields,
or not at all, that is, those to are focused
enough to have a chosen field.
There are any number of things that spoiled brats
might want. You can imagine them as well as I can.
But we're not likely to communicate on this,
because your interest seems to be in justifying
them, and my interest is in them getting off their
asses and becoming self-reliant. If they do that
first, then they can fight corruption wherever
they find it, with my blessing.
> calvin wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2012 9:44:00 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > > The occupiers are against the corruption in Wall Street, big banks, and
> > > big corporations in controlling politicians to do their bidding. The
> > > occupiers are not against making money or the businesses themselves:
> > > just corruptions that might be in them.
> >
> > Everybody's against corruption, but I think you're giving
> > the occupiers too much credit, assuming they're as focused
> > as you are. I don't think they could give you examples of
> > corruption, because they don't know enough to do so, not
> > because corruption doesn't exist.
>
> Besides the well known examples of corruption, I learned from the
> occupiers about Monsanto. The "small" farmers are being put out of
> business because Monsanto is suing them for using Monsanto's genetically
> modified seed (the situation is that if 1% of a seed has Monsanto's
> modification then Monsanto "owns" the seed, where the 1% is due to cross
> pollination and not that the farmer is stealing the seed, but rather the
> modified seed is coming onto the farmer's farm unwillingly).
>
> > All they know is that
> > Wall Street, banks, and corporations are bad, period.
>
> Bad because they make money: do you really believe that is what
> occupiers think?
No, bad because of their greed to make as much money
> > On Friday, April 6, 2012 9:44:00 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > > The occupiers are against the corruption in Wall Street, big banks, and
> > > big corporations in controlling politicians to do their bidding. The
> > > occupiers are not against making money or the businesses themselves:
> > > just corruptions that might be in them.
> >
> > Everybody's against corruption, but I think you're giving
> > the occupiers too much credit, assuming they're as focused
> > as you are. I don't think they could give you examples of
> > corruption, because they don't know enough to do so, not
> > because corruption doesn't exist.
>
> Besides the well known examples of corruption, I learned from the
> occupiers about Monsanto. The "small" farmers are being put out of
> business because Monsanto is suing them for using Monsanto's genetically
> modified seed (the situation is that if 1% of a seed has Monsanto's
> modification then Monsanto "owns" the seed, where the 1% is due to cross
> pollination and not that the farmer is stealing the seed, but rather the
> modified seed is coming onto the farmer's farm unwillingly).
>
> > All they know is that
> > Wall Street, banks, and corporations are bad, period.
>
> Bad because they make money: do you really believe that is what
> occupiers think?
as possible, and their ruthlessness, no matter what
harm they do, so the line goes.
> > That's what they have been taught to believe, and they
> > want to believe it.
>
> Who are teaching them that?
> Why do they want to believe it?
> > Whatever they need excuses for, that
> > belief habit provides them.
>
> Excuse for what? That it is hard to get a job?
entitled to without having to prepare for it.
> That they don't want to work?
or not at all, that is, those to are focused
enough to have a chosen field.
There are any number of things that spoiled brats
might want. You can imagine them as well as I can.
But we're not likely to communicate on this,
because your interest seems to be in justifying
them, and my interest is in them getting off their
asses and becoming self-reliant. If they do that
first, then they can fight corruption wherever
they find it, with my blessing.
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 11:05:27 PM4/6/12
to
The issues are quite well defined. Try this:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/10823-the-fable-of-the-century
Tom
Tom
Apr 6, 2012, 11:10:46 PM4/6/12
to
surviving if they aren't self-reliant?
It's quite clear you do not know any young people first hand.
Tom
calvin
Apr 6, 2012, 11:30:00 PM4/6/12
to
being insulting ...
> It's quite clear you do not know any young people first hand.
is a young man who learned his father's heating and
cooling business, and is an energetic entrepeneur.
And I run into young people working in businesses
here and there as I go about my weekly errands.
My vet was a young black man when I first started
taking cats to him 11 years ago. He has been a
fine example of a young person, though of course
he's in his 30s now.
But I never have occasion to run into the worthless
types anymore, though I used to.
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 6, 2012, 11:44:11 PM4/6/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 11:30:00 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>
> I know a couple of self-reliant young people. One
> is a young man who learned his father's heating and
> cooling business, and is an energetic entrepeneur.
>
> And I run into young people working in businesses
> here and there as I go about my weekly errands.
>
> My vet was a young black man when I first started
> taking cats to him 11 years ago. He has been a
> fine example of a young person, though of course
> he's in his 30s now.
>
> But I never have occasion to run into the worthless
> types anymore, though I used to.
I've finally figured it out. This is calvin The Usenet Guy and it's actually a stand-up comedy routine designed to make conservatives look stupid. Sorta like an old crank with no life experience playing off the issues of the day in a completely uninformed and superficial way. It could work with any political view but this place is so packed with "liberals" that the shock factor remains only if he swings hard to the right. If you just step back a bit, this stuff is hysterical. The guy who inherited a business is an "entrepreneur," a nod to minorities with the mention of his vet, and somehow he manages to avoid the "worthless types." How does he do that? This is funny stuff. I might go through the archives and lift his rants and use them in a novel or something. You can't make this shit up.
>
> I know a couple of self-reliant young people. One
> is a young man who learned his father's heating and
> cooling business, and is an energetic entrepeneur.
>
> And I run into young people working in businesses
> here and there as I go about my weekly errands.
>
> My vet was a young black man when I first started
> taking cats to him 11 years ago. He has been a
> fine example of a young person, though of course
> he's in his 30s now.
>
> But I never have occasion to run into the worthless
> types anymore, though I used to.
calvin
Apr 7, 2012, 12:06:13 AM4/7/12
to
calvin
Apr 7, 2012, 12:35:21 AM4/7/12
to
On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:44:10 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> On Apr 6, 4:40 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/12/transcript-sarah-palin-interview-with-charles-gibson-part-i/
I finally got around to reading this transcript, and also found the
follow-on interview, not finished yet. I'm not trying to be cute here,
but reading this has greatly bolstered my respect for Palin. She is
very much in command of herself and in control of the situation, in
spite of her lapse regarding the proximity of Alaska and Russia. I
got more out of reading the interview than hearing it four years ago.
Maybe her voice inflections were the problem, and not her ability to
talk, of which I complained recently. In the part of the interview
about energy in Alaska she was way ahead of Gibson, and when he
tried to trap her concerning her differences with McCain over global
warming, she got the best of him easily. When Gibson said, "isn't
that hubris", when she expressed confidence in her abilities if elected,
he was just being a prick. What did he want her to say, that she
didn't know if she was up to the job? Boy, would he have loved it
if she had made that news for him.
I'm very glad to have read this, because now I see the difference
between her voice inflections and her words. I've learned something
useful that I bet the movie couldn't have taught me. Thanks, Charlie.
> On Apr 6, 4:40 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:25:10 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > > calvin wrote:
> > > calvin wrote:
> > > > Speaking of side-swipes:
> >
> > > > "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
> >
> > > > You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> > > > and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> > > > repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> > > > that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> > > > which is true.
> >
> >
> > > > "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
> >
> > > > You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> > > > and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> > > > repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> > > > that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> > > > which is true.
> >
> > > But she said "you can see Russia from Alaska" as a reason that she has
> > > experience in foreign affairs. I think the context is something like the
> > > following. Interviewer asks "Some people question your lack of
> > > experience in foreign affairs." Palin replies "Well, you can see Russia
> > > from Alaska."
> >
> > I believe that was in the Charlie Gibson interview, but I
> > think you have oversimplified the exchange. I don't remember
> > it well enough to prove my belief, however, and would welcome
> > a transcript if you can provide it.
>
> Here you are...
> > > experience in foreign affairs. I think the context is something like the
> > > following. Interviewer asks "Some people question your lack of
> > > experience in foreign affairs." Palin replies "Well, you can see Russia
> > > from Alaska."
> >
> > I believe that was in the Charlie Gibson interview, but I
> > think you have oversimplified the exchange. I don't remember
> > it well enough to prove my belief, however, and would welcome
> > a transcript if you can provide it.
>
>
> http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/12/transcript-sarah-palin-interview-with-charles-gibson-part-i/
I finally got around to reading this transcript, and also found the
follow-on interview, not finished yet. I'm not trying to be cute here,
but reading this has greatly bolstered my respect for Palin. She is
very much in command of herself and in control of the situation, in
spite of her lapse regarding the proximity of Alaska and Russia. I
got more out of reading the interview than hearing it four years ago.
Maybe her voice inflections were the problem, and not her ability to
talk, of which I complained recently. In the part of the interview
about energy in Alaska she was way ahead of Gibson, and when he
tried to trap her concerning her differences with McCain over global
warming, she got the best of him easily. When Gibson said, "isn't
that hubris", when she expressed confidence in her abilities if elected,
he was just being a prick. What did he want her to say, that she
didn't know if she was up to the job? Boy, would he have loved it
if she had made that news for him.
I'm very glad to have read this, because now I see the difference
between her voice inflections and her words. I've learned something
useful that I bet the movie couldn't have taught me. Thanks, Charlie.
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 7, 2012, 12:55:46 AM4/7/12
to
On Saturday, April 7, 2012 12:35:21 AM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>
> I finally got around to reading this transcript, and also found the
> follow-on interview, not finished yet. I'm not trying to be cute here,
> but reading this has greatly bolstered my respect for Palin. She is
> very much in command of herself and in control of the situation, in
> spite of her lapse regarding the proximity of Alaska and Russia. I
> got more out of reading the interview than hearing it four years ago.
> Maybe her voice inflections were the problem, and not her ability to
> talk, of which I complained recently. In the part of the interview
> about energy in Alaska she was way ahead of Gibson, and when he
> tried to trap her concerning her differences with McCain over global
> warming, she got the best of him easily. When Gibson said, "isn't
> that hubris", when she expressed confidence in her abilities if elected,
> he was just being a prick. What did he want her to say, that she
> didn't know if she was up to the job? Boy, would he have loved it
> if she had made that news for him.
>
> I'm very glad to have read this, because now I see the difference
> between her voice inflections and her words. I've learned something
> useful that I bet the movie couldn't have taught me. Thanks, Charlie.
Stay in your seats, folks, the dancing cats will be out in a moment . . .
>
> I finally got around to reading this transcript, and also found the
> follow-on interview, not finished yet. I'm not trying to be cute here,
> but reading this has greatly bolstered my respect for Palin. She is
> very much in command of herself and in control of the situation, in
> spite of her lapse regarding the proximity of Alaska and Russia. I
> got more out of reading the interview than hearing it four years ago.
> Maybe her voice inflections were the problem, and not her ability to
> talk, of which I complained recently. In the part of the interview
> about energy in Alaska she was way ahead of Gibson, and when he
> tried to trap her concerning her differences with McCain over global
> warming, she got the best of him easily. When Gibson said, "isn't
> that hubris", when she expressed confidence in her abilities if elected,
> he was just being a prick. What did he want her to say, that she
> didn't know if she was up to the job? Boy, would he have loved it
> if she had made that news for him.
>
> I'm very glad to have read this, because now I see the difference
> between her voice inflections and her words. I've learned something
> useful that I bet the movie couldn't have taught me. Thanks, Charlie.
moviePig
Apr 7, 2012, 9:07:56 AM4/7/12
to
On Apr 7, 12:35 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:44:10 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 4:40 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:25:10 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > > > calvin wrote:
> > > > > Speaking of side-swipes:
>
> > > > > "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
>
> > > > > You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> > > > > and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> > > > > repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> > > > > that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> > > > > which is true.
>
> > > > But she said "you can see Russia from Alaska" as a reason that she has
> > > > experience in foreign affairs. I think the context is something like the
> > > > following. Interviewer asks "Some people question your lack of
> > > > experience in foreign affairs." Palin replies "Well, you can see Russia
> > > > from Alaska."
>
> > > I believe that was in the Charlie Gibson interview, but I
> > > think you have oversimplified the exchange. I don't remember
> > > it well enough to prove my belief, however, and would welcome
> > > a transcript if you can provide it.
>
> > Here you are...
>
> >http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/12/transcript-sarah-palin-inte...
> On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:44:10 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> > On Apr 6, 4:40 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 6, 2012 5:25:10 PM UTC-4, William Hale wrote:
> > > > calvin wrote:
> > > > > Speaking of side-swipes:
>
> > > > > "Like whether they can see Russia from their roof?"
>
> > > > > You do know, I hope, that it was Saturday Night Live
> > > > > and Tina Fey who said that. It has been endlessly
> > > > > repeated as fact, but what Palin actually said was
> > > > > that you can see Russia (meaning Siberia) from Alaska,
> > > > > which is true.
>
> > > > But she said "you can see Russia from Alaska" as a reason that she has
> > > > experience in foreign affairs. I think the context is something like the
> > > > following. Interviewer asks "Some people question your lack of
> > > > experience in foreign affairs." Palin replies "Well, you can see Russia
> > > > from Alaska."
>
> > > I believe that was in the Charlie Gibson interview, but I
> > > think you have oversimplified the exchange. I don't remember
> > > it well enough to prove my belief, however, and would welcome
> > > a transcript if you can provide it.
>
> > Here you are...
>
>
> I finally got around to reading this transcript, and also found the
> follow-on interview, not finished yet. I'm not trying to be cute here,
> but reading this has greatly bolstered my respect for Palin. She is
> very much in command of herself and in control of the situation, in
> spite of her lapse regarding the proximity of Alaska and Russia. I
> got more out of reading the interview than hearing it four years ago.
> Maybe her voice inflections were the problem, and not her ability to
> talk, of which I complained recently. In the part of the interview
> about energy in Alaska she was way ahead of Gibson, and when he
> tried to trap her concerning her differences with McCain over global
> warming, she got the best of him easily. When Gibson said, "isn't
> that hubris", when she expressed confidence in her abilities if elected,
> he was just being a prick. What did he want her to say, that she
> didn't know if she was up to the job? Boy, would he have loved it
> if she had made that news for him.
>
> I'm very glad to have read this, because now I see the difference
> between her voice inflections and her words. I've learned something
> useful that I bet the movie couldn't have taught me. Thanks, Charlie.
Odd. Most of us find such things as voice inflections (which can't be
> I finally got around to reading this transcript, and also found the
> follow-on interview, not finished yet. I'm not trying to be cute here,
> but reading this has greatly bolstered my respect for Palin. She is
> very much in command of herself and in control of the situation, in
> spite of her lapse regarding the proximity of Alaska and Russia. I
> got more out of reading the interview than hearing it four years ago.
> Maybe her voice inflections were the problem, and not her ability to
> talk, of which I complained recently. In the part of the interview
> about energy in Alaska she was way ahead of Gibson, and when he
> tried to trap her concerning her differences with McCain over global
> warming, she got the best of him easily. When Gibson said, "isn't
> that hubris", when she expressed confidence in her abilities if elected,
> he was just being a prick. What did he want her to say, that she
> didn't know if she was up to the job? Boy, would he have loved it
> if she had made that news for him.
>
> I'm very glad to have read this, because now I see the difference
> between her voice inflections and her words. I've learned something
> useful that I bet the movie couldn't have taught me. Thanks, Charlie.
memorized) to be *more* revealing than words (which can). It's why,
e.g., we usually want to meet candidates -- for anything -- in
person...
Tom
Apr 7, 2012, 9:18:38 AM4/7/12
to
spoken...
Tom
trotsky
Apr 8, 2012, 5:12:22 PM4/8/12
to
trotsky
Apr 8, 2012, 5:20:21 PM4/8/12
to
NoBody
Apr 9, 2012, 10:48:08 AM4/9/12
to
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:30:29 -0400, Bill Anderson
<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 4/6/2012 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 06:48:25 -0400, Newpor...@webtv.net (Steve
>> Newport) wrote:
>>
>>> From: jjk...@aol.com (Joan in GB-W)
>>> She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
>>> she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
>>> Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
>>>
>>
>> Credible cite?
>
>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-gamechange-20120218,0,1100388.story
>
>One jarring revelation in which the movie reaches beyond the book comes
>when [Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign's chief strategist], makes a
>query to assess nominee Palin's awareness of foreign affairs, asking
>McCain's VP pick how she would respond in the White House to news of
>waning British support for the war in Iraq.
>
>The Palin character, sitting opposite Schmidt in a campaign bus, says
>McCain would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the queen of
>England on the subject. Flabbergasted, the Schmidt character informs her
>the queen is not the head of government. Palin asks who is. He informs
>her that the country has a prime minister.
>
>[Danny Strong, writer of the film] said he uncovered that additional
>episode during the 25 interviews he conducted with principals from Team
>McCain. Schmidt confirmed the account.
You did note that nowhere in that quote was an actual citeable fact
right? It's a statement that it appears in the movie and the writer
said it happened. That does not make it fact does it?
<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 4/6/2012 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 06:48:25 -0400, Newpor...@webtv.net (Steve
>> Newport) wrote:
>>
>>> From: jjk...@aol.com (Joan in GB-W)
>>> She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
>>> she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
>>> Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
>>> -----------------------------------
>>> SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
>>>
>>
>> Credible cite?
>
>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-gamechange-20120218,0,1100388.story
>
>One jarring revelation in which the movie reaches beyond the book comes
>when [Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign's chief strategist], makes a
>query to assess nominee Palin's awareness of foreign affairs, asking
>McCain's VP pick how she would respond in the White House to news of
>waning British support for the war in Iraq.
>
>The Palin character, sitting opposite Schmidt in a campaign bus, says
>McCain would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the queen of
>England on the subject. Flabbergasted, the Schmidt character informs her
>the queen is not the head of government. Palin asks who is. He informs
>her that the country has a prime minister.
>
>[Danny Strong, writer of the film] said he uncovered that additional
>episode during the 25 interviews he conducted with principals from Team
>McCain. Schmidt confirmed the account.
You did note that nowhere in that quote was an actual citeable fact
right? It's a statement that it appears in the movie and the writer
said it happened. That does not make it fact does it?
Invid Fan
Apr 9, 2012, 2:14:34 PM4/9/12
to
In article <ait5o7dg4l8n947ph...@4ax.com>, NoBody
The quote says that Schmidt says that was the exchange he had with
Palin. Obviously, unless cameras were there the only "facts" are what
those in the room say happened.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
Palin. Obviously, unless cameras were there the only "facts" are what
those in the room say happened.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
NoBody
Apr 10, 2012, 6:27:08 AM4/10/12
to
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:14:34 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
wrote:
Thank you for your admission there is no proof of the claim. It's a
shame folks take "because I said so" as evidence when it fits their
ideology.
wrote:
shame folks take "because I said so" as evidence when it fits their
ideology.
moviePig
Apr 10, 2012, 9:23:37 AM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 6:27 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:14:34 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <ait5o7dg4l8n947phnhg7u869np5h2e...@4ax.com>, NoBody
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:14:34 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> ><NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:30:29 -0400, Bill Anderson
> >> <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On 4/6/2012 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 06:48:25 -0400, NewportsRe...@webtv.net (Steve
>
> >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:30:29 -0400, Bill Anderson
> >> <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On 4/6/2012 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >> >> Newport) wrote:
>
> >> >>> From: jjkr...@aol.com (Joan in GB-W)
> >> >>> She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
> >> >>> she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
> >> >>> Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
> >> >>> -----------------------------------
> >> >>> SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
>
> >> >> Credible cite?
>
> >> >>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-gamechange-2012021...
> >> >>> From: jjkr...@aol.com (Joan in GB-W)
> >> >>> She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
> >> >>> she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
> >> >>> Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
> >> >>> -----------------------------------
> >> >>> SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
>
> >> >> Credible cite?
>
> >> >0388.story
>
> >> >One jarring revelation in which the movie reaches beyond the book comes
> >> >when [Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign's chief strategist], makes a
> >> >query to assess nominee Palin's awareness of foreign affairs, asking
> >> >McCain's VP pick how she would respond in the White House to news of
> >> >waning British support for the war in Iraq.
>
> >> >The Palin character, sitting opposite Schmidt in a campaign bus, says
> >> >McCain would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the queen of
> >> >England on the subject. Flabbergasted, the Schmidt character informs her
> >> >the queen is not the head of government. Palin asks who is. He informs
> >> >her that the country has a prime minister.
>
> >> >[Danny Strong, writer of the film] said he uncovered that additional
> >> >episode during the 25 interviews he conducted with principals from Team
> >> >McCain. Schmidt confirmed the account.
>
> >> You did note that nowhere in that quote was an actual citeable fact
> >> right? It's a statement that it appears in the movie and the writer
> >> said it happened. That does not make it fact does it?
>
> >The quote says that Schmidt says that was the exchange he had with
> >Palin. Obviously, unless cameras were there the only "facts" are what
> >those in the room say happened.
>
> Thank you for your admission there is no proof of the claim. It's a
> shame folks take "because I said so" as evidence when it fits their
> ideology.
Umm... I think what he said was that there can be no "proof" of the
>
> >> >One jarring revelation in which the movie reaches beyond the book comes
> >> >when [Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign's chief strategist], makes a
> >> >query to assess nominee Palin's awareness of foreign affairs, asking
> >> >McCain's VP pick how she would respond in the White House to news of
> >> >waning British support for the war in Iraq.
>
> >> >The Palin character, sitting opposite Schmidt in a campaign bus, says
> >> >McCain would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the queen of
> >> >England on the subject. Flabbergasted, the Schmidt character informs her
> >> >the queen is not the head of government. Palin asks who is. He informs
> >> >her that the country has a prime minister.
>
> >> >[Danny Strong, writer of the film] said he uncovered that additional
> >> >episode during the 25 interviews he conducted with principals from Team
> >> >McCain. Schmidt confirmed the account.
>
> >> You did note that nowhere in that quote was an actual citeable fact
> >> right? It's a statement that it appears in the movie and the writer
> >> said it happened. That does not make it fact does it?
>
> >The quote says that Schmidt says that was the exchange he had with
> >Palin. Obviously, unless cameras were there the only "facts" are what
> >those in the room say happened.
>
> Thank you for your admission there is no proof of the claim. It's a
> shame folks take "because I said so" as evidence when it fits their
> ideology.
claim, merely the usual circumstantial corroboration that the real
world uses.
Invid Fan
Apr 10, 2012, 10:48:58 AM4/10/12
to
In article
<5598c8a9-cb04-4910...@a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
enough :)
<5598c8a9-cb04-4910...@a5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 6:27 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:14:34 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
> On Apr 10, 6:27 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:14:34 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
> > >The quote says that Schmidt says that was the exchange he had with
> > >Palin. Obviously, unless cameras were there the only "facts" are what
> > >those in the room say happened.
> >
> > Thank you for your admission there is no proof of the claim. It's a
> > shame folks take "because I said so" as evidence when it fits their
> > ideology.
>
> Umm... I think what he said was that there can be no "proof" of the
> claim, merely the usual circumstantial corroboration that the real
> world uses.
>
Exactly. This is Usenet, not the real world, so obviously that's not
> > >Palin. Obviously, unless cameras were there the only "facts" are what
> > >those in the room say happened.
> >
> > Thank you for your admission there is no proof of the claim. It's a
> > shame folks take "because I said so" as evidence when it fits their
> > ideology.
>
> Umm... I think what he said was that there can be no "proof" of the
> claim, merely the usual circumstantial corroboration that the real
> world uses.
>
enough :)
Tom
Apr 10, 2012, 1:25:09 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 5:27 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:14:34 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >In article <ait5o7dg4l8n947phnhg7u869np5h2e...@4ax.com>, NoBody
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:14:34 -0400, Invid Fan <in...@loclanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ><NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:30:29 -0400, Bill Anderson
> >> <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On 4/6/2012 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 13:30:29 -0400, Bill Anderson
> >> <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On 4/6/2012 6:28 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >> >>> From: jjkr...@aol.com (Joan in GB-W)
> >> >>> She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
> >> >>> she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
> >> >>> Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
> >> >>> -----------------------------------
> >> >>> SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
>
> >> >> Credible cite?
>
> >> >>http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-et-gamechange-2012021...
> >> >>> She did not know the difference between North and South Korea - nor did
> >> >>> she know it was a divided country. Never heard of the Federal Reserve
> >> >>> Board. Yep, she was a fine candidate.
> >> >>> -----------------------------------
> >> >>> SN: She thought the British monarchy actually ran things.
>
> >> >> Credible cite?
>
> >> >0388.story
>
> >> >One jarring revelation in which the movie reaches beyond the book comes
> >> >when [Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign's chief strategist], makes a
> >> >query to assess nominee Palin's awareness of foreign affairs, asking
> >> >McCain's VP pick how she would respond in the White House to news of
> >> >waning British support for the war in Iraq.
>
> >> >The Palin character, sitting opposite Schmidt in a campaign bus, says
> >> >McCain would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the queen of
> >> >England on the subject. Flabbergasted, the Schmidt character informs her
> >> >the queen is not the head of government. Palin asks who is. He informs
> >> >her that the country has a prime minister.
>
> >> >[Danny Strong, writer of the film] said he uncovered that additional
> >> >episode during the 25 interviews he conducted with principals from Team
> >> >McCain. Schmidt confirmed the account.
>
> >> You did note that nowhere in that quote was an actual citeable fact
> >> right? It's a statement that it appears in the movie and the writer
> >> said it happened. That does not make it fact does it?
>
> >The quote says that Schmidt says that was the exchange he had with
> >Palin. Obviously, unless cameras were there the only "facts" are what
> >those in the room say happened.
>
> Thank you for your admission there is no proof of the claim. It's a
> shame folks take "because I said so" as evidence when it fits their
> ideology.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >One jarring revelation in which the movie reaches beyond the book comes
> >> >when [Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign's chief strategist], makes a
> >> >query to assess nominee Palin's awareness of foreign affairs, asking
> >> >McCain's VP pick how she would respond in the White House to news of
> >> >waning British support for the war in Iraq.
>
> >> >The Palin character, sitting opposite Schmidt in a campaign bus, says
> >> >McCain would "continue to have an open dialogue" with the queen of
> >> >England on the subject. Flabbergasted, the Schmidt character informs her
> >> >the queen is not the head of government. Palin asks who is. He informs
> >> >her that the country has a prime minister.
>
> >> >[Danny Strong, writer of the film] said he uncovered that additional
> >> >episode during the 25 interviews he conducted with principals from Team
> >> >McCain. Schmidt confirmed the account.
>
> >> You did note that nowhere in that quote was an actual citeable fact
> >> right? It's a statement that it appears in the movie and the writer
> >> said it happened. That does not make it fact does it?
>
> >The quote says that Schmidt says that was the exchange he had with
> >Palin. Obviously, unless cameras were there the only "facts" are what
> >those in the room say happened.
>
> Thank you for your admission there is no proof of the claim. It's a
> shame folks take "because I said so" as evidence when it fits their
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, Schmidt was saying, "because I was there, having the
conversation." You seem to keep missing that point.
Tom
NoBody
Apr 11, 2012, 6:31:35 AM4/11/12
to
fact?
NoBody
Apr 11, 2012, 6:34:10 AM4/11/12
to
so". Wow, and you still accept it as fact?
moviePig
Apr 11, 2012, 10:28:30 AM4/11/12
to
in general, I think we all use such information even to cross the
street.
Tom
Apr 11, 2012, 11:11:32 AM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 5:34 am, NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> so". Wow, and you still accept it as fact?- Hide quoted text -
He was there, you weren't, so who actually has a firmer grip on the
facts?
Tom
>
> - Show quoted text -
What would be Schmidt's motivation for lying?
> - Show quoted text -
He was there, you weren't, so who actually has a firmer grip on the
facts?
Tom
Invid Fan
Apr 11, 2012, 11:55:24 AM4/11/12
to
In article <qcnao7dadmbhgt6lp...@4ax.com>, NoBody
Well, that's why I never believed that girl who grew up with me was my
sister. I mean, all we had was the "evidence" of the people in the
delivery room. Why trust them?
sister. I mean, all we had was the "evidence" of the people in the
delivery room. Why trust them?
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 11:59:04 AM4/11/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:55:24 AM UTC-4, Invid Fan wrote:
>
> Well, that's why I never believed that girl who grew up with me was my
> sister. I mean, all we had was the "evidence" of the people in the
> delivery room. Why trust them?
>
During the Charlie Manson trial, Manson's lawyer objected when a witness was asked to state their name. The judge was baffled and asked the nature of the objection. The lawyer responded that the witness had learned his name from his parents and that constituted hearsay.
>
> Well, that's why I never believed that girl who grew up with me was my
> sister. I mean, all we had was the "evidence" of the people in the
> delivery room. Why trust them?
>
calvin
Apr 11, 2012, 12:25:55 PM4/11/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> What would be Schmidt's motivation for lying?
> He was there, you weren't, so who actually has a firmer grip on the
> facts?
Facts don't matter to a Palin basher. What
> What would be Schmidt's motivation for lying?
> He was there, you weren't, so who actually has a firmer grip on the
> facts?
matters is yukking it up with one's cronies,
poking one another with their elbows, and chortling.
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 1:35:58 PM4/11/12
to
calvin
Apr 11, 2012, 2:37:35 PM4/11/12
to
moviePig
Apr 11, 2012, 2:56:17 PM4/11/12
to
What transformed him into a congenital "Palin basher"? ...liberal
mushrooms?
moviePig
Apr 11, 2012, 2:58:14 PM4/11/12
to
calvin
Apr 11, 2012, 3:15:11 PM4/11/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:56:17 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On Apr 11, 12:25 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> > > What would be Schmidt's motivation for lying?
> > > He was there, you weren't, so who actually has a firmer grip on the
> > > facts?
> >
> > Facts don't matter to a Palin basher. What
> > matters is yukking it up with one's cronies,
> > poking one another with their elbows, and chortling.
>
> Wasn't Schmidt a prime mover in Palin's ascendancy to the ticket?
> What transformed him into a congenital "Palin basher"? ...liberal
> mushrooms?
He is said above to be 'the McCain campaign's chief strategist'.
> On Apr 11, 12:25 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:11:32 AM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> > > What would be Schmidt's motivation for lying?
> > > He was there, you weren't, so who actually has a firmer grip on the
> > > facts?
> >
> > Facts don't matter to a Palin basher. What
> > matters is yukking it up with one's cronies,
> > poking one another with their elbows, and chortling.
>
> Wasn't Schmidt a prime mover in Palin's ascendancy to the ticket?
> What transformed him into a congenital "Palin basher"? ...liberal
> mushrooms?
In that capacity he may or may not have been on Palin's side in
anything. From that we can't tell. I haven't read the book,
but it is said above that the anecdote about the Queen was not
in the book. Well, why wasn't it? Did Time magazine's chief
liberal media figure think it not appropriate for the book?
Not bloody likely. Who knows if it's true or not, but during
the past four years any outrageous thing anyone says about Palin
is treated as truth by the left, and this one is as outrageous
as they come. It may be true, but it needs more proof than
an "oh yeah, I forgot to mention this" from Schmidt.
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 3:20:54 PM4/11/12
to
wlah...@gmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 3:17:16 PM4/11/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:58:14 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On Apr 11, 11:59 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > During the Charlie Manson trial, Manson's lawyer objected when a witness was asked to state their name. The judge was baffled and asked the nature of the objection. The lawyer responded that the witness had learned his name from his parents and that constituted hearsay.
>
> Or, so you'd have us believe...
>
Ahhh, my get thee to a punnery friend, there is an actual in-print record taken from the trial transcript and published in Vincent Bugliosi and Curt Gentry's book, Helter Skelter. Far from hearsay, I say.
> On Apr 11, 11:59 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > During the Charlie Manson trial, Manson's lawyer objected when a witness was asked to state their name. The judge was baffled and asked the nature of the objection. The lawyer responded that the witness had learned his name from his parents and that constituted hearsay.
>
> Or, so you'd have us believe...
>
calvin
Apr 11, 2012, 3:28:34 PM4/11/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:15:11 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> ... Did Time magazine's chief
I neglected to give his name, Mark Halperin, one
of the book's authors.
> ... Did Time magazine's chief
> liberal media figure think it not appropriate for the book?
> Not bloody likely. ...
I neglected to give his name, Mark Halperin, one
of the book's authors.
calvin
Apr 11, 2012, 3:33:15 PM4/11/12
to
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:20:54 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:37:35 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:35:58 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Or a Peter Jackson basher. With Jackson, you can call him "scum" for things he didn't do and had nothing to do with and then re-imagine contract law to prove it.
> >
> > IF
>
> "IF"? You mean you didn't re-imagine contract law to be based on people "liking" certain contract violations and your notions of morality? Your "IF" doesn't cover that part.
No, as you well know because I've told you a
> On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 2:37:35 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:35:58 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Or a Peter Jackson basher. With Jackson, you can call him "scum" for things he didn't do and had nothing to do with and then re-imagine contract law to prove it.
> >
> > IF
>
> "IF"? You mean you didn't re-imagine contract law to be based on people "liking" certain contract violations and your notions of morality? Your "IF" doesn't cover that part.
couple of times, I said Jackson was scum *** I F ***
he allowed action to be taken against the pub. As I
later learned it didn't come to that because the pub was
saved by a couple of other people.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages