I wish Powell had talked about some of the policies that he likes about Obama, I think that would have gone a long way towards legitmizing his view. Unfortunately he made a lot of "cult of peronality" comments. Things like:
"ability to inspire"
"inclusive nature of his campaign"
"I think he is a transformational figure, he is a new generation coming onto the world stage, onto the American stage, "
Not that I think there is anything wrong with picking someone based on totally subjective reasons. It is just that it doesn't inspire others who may not share those feelings or who feel those are less important than other matters. Of course if you don't have a stronge feeling one way or the other, totally subjective views can help you make a choice.
Kinda feel as if Powell would have been a better running-mate, in some respects, than Biden...
Kinda feel as if Powell would have been a better running-mate, in some respects, than Biden...
Couldn't have been worse. :D
Well, that just about wraps that up. President Obama it is.
<insert crickets in field sound effect here>
And......?
|
Wow. This for me is an unexpected turn. Powell is a man I respect, much as John McCain is. But he is also probably the most famous African American Republican. The blurb I read on it only had a few snippets like presman pointed out. I didn't watch meet the press, so I would be interested to hear if he actually talked about any of the policy issues that presman said he wished were there.
I will say one final thing, Powell's role as secretary of state under the first Bush term was an important steadying voice for an administration that at times stood on shaky ground. In any event, I suspect we will get lots of spin doctoring on both sides about this one. I don't know if Powell would be open to such a move, but if Obama wins the whole thing I wonder if he could offer a place in his cabinet for Powell. I would love to have Powell's experience there to help him on matters of foreign policy especially.
|
Of course Obama could have picked a worse running mate. A certain female governor from Alaska comes to mind.
You can see some of the interview here.
I hardly need to say much else. Powell does it for me, in a much more considered and eloquent way.
Off-topic, I just learned that one of Obama's economic advisers is Larry Summers, who was forced out of his job as Harvard's President after making some potentially sexist remarks. Just another reason for women to want to vote for Obama, he understands their concerns. [/snark]
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Off-topic, I just learned that one of Obama's economic advisers is Larry Summers, who was forced out of his job as Harvard's President after making some potentially sexist remarks. Just another reason for women to want to vote for Obama, he understands their concerns. [/snark]
Do you disagree with Summers' belief that there could be a 'nature' component to the gender mix in science?
Differences between the sexes
Main article: Gender differences
In January 2005, Summers suggested, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce sponsored by the National Bureau of Economics Research, the possibility that many factors outside of socialization could explain why there were more men than women in high-end science and engineering positions. He suggested one such possible reason could be men's higher variance in relevant innate abilities or innate preference.[15][16] An attendee made Summers' remarks public, and an intense response followed in the national news media and on Harvard's campus.[17]
Off-topic, I just learned that one of Obama's economic advisers is Larry Summers, who was forced out of his job as Harvard's President after making some potentially sexist remarks. Just another reason for women to want to vote for Obama, he understands their concerns. [/snark]Do you disagree with Summers' belief that there could be a 'nature' component to the gender mix in science?
** spoiler omitted **
That poor guy got pilloried in the Boston press. I am actually surprised that Obama would take a chance on him with the negativity attached to him from that little witchunt.
Off-topic, I just learned that one of Obama's economic advisers is Larry Summers, who was forced out of his job as Harvard's President after making some potentially sexist remarks. Just another reason for women to want to vote for Obama, he understands their concerns. [/snark]Do you disagree with Summers' belief that there could be a 'nature' component to the gender mix in science?
** spoiler omitted **
My view doesn't really matter (though I do teach math, the female students tend to do better on average than males in my personal experience, whether that is due to social or biological forces, I wouldn't dare hazard a guess). Though to point out what some people that care about women's issues think:
SlateFeminist Majority Foundation
But I'm not going post anymore on this anymore here (though I understand if others wish to respond), it is just the comment about Palin that brought it to my mind.
Let's get back to Powell and Obama. It might be noted that even before the Democratic Convention there was talk about Powell endorsing Obama, so I don't think this is as big of a surprise as some might think.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
My view doesn't really matter (though I do teach math, the female students tend to do better on average than males in my personal experience, whether that is due to social or biological forces, I wouldn't dare hazard a guess).Off-topic, I just learned that one of Obama's economic advisers is Larry Summers, who was forced out of his job as Harvard's President after making some potentially sexist remarks. Just another reason for women to want to vote for Obama, he understands their concerns. [/snark]Do you disagree with Summers' belief that there could be a 'nature' component to the gender mix in science?
** spoiler omitted **
You'd better not hazard a guess. It sounds like it might be a dangerous thing to do. Even to suggest that the many psychologists who argue that there is a nature component to gender differences might be right could get you in trouble.
If Powell had done this six months ago, it might have mattered.
|
Do you disagree with Summers' belief that there could be a 'nature' component to the gender mix in science?
I think summers had an excellent point, and was treated terribly for expressing it - so much for Freedom of Speech.
|
Kinda feel as if Powell would have been a better running-mate, in some respects, than Biden...
Powell would have been a better candidate, never mind running-mate.
Unfortunately for the country he, reasonably, refuses to subject his family to the side effects.And even though she is snubbed for being loyal to Bush, Rice would make quite a suitable running mate.
Now there is high irony for you. With all the talk of race, Powell-Rice would cruise to a landslide, and yet they are not running because they would be eaten alive by the politics of personal destruction, and the media's love affair with it.
It is to cry.
|
|
I beg to differ Sam,
While Powell was initially seen as an ethical John McCain (and could have been the first black American President in 2001 - with real majority support of the people - I believe he would have been the President to put the USA back on the moon fulltime), his subsequent recruitment by the Bush Governments to suck up his legitimacy(friends close, rivals closer) resulted in a man who doesnt rock the boat, would never turn a corrupt President in, never expose a government whose legitimacy is cross-border ethical, and jumps ship because he known too much about what is going on but wont take a stand against it.
He is now the fanboy, not the Sidekick, and definatly not the hero.
I beg to differ Sam,
While Powell was initially seen as an ethical John McCain (and could have been the first black American President in 2001 - with real majority support of the people - I believe he would have been the President to put the USA back on the moon fulltime), his subsequent recruitment by the Bush Governments to suck up his legitimacy(friends close, rivals closer) resulted in a man who doesnt rock the boat, would never turn a corrupt President in, never expose a government whose legitimacy is cross-border ethical, and jumps ship because he known too much about what is going on but wont take a stand against it.
He is now the fanboy, not the Sidekick, and definatly not the hero.
On this I have to agree. I mean, if your boss came to you, and asked you to hold a press conference and lie, what would you do?
I like Colin Powell and I think his endorsement means a lot to a lot of people. I just wish it was the pre-Bush Colin Powell.
|
|
You'd better not hazard a guess. It sounds like it might be a dangerous thing to do. Even to suggest that the many psychologists who argue that there is a nature component to gender differences might be right could get you in trouble.My view doesn't really matter (though I do teach math, the female students tend to do better on average than males in my personal experience, whether that is due to social or biological forces, I wouldn't dare hazard a guess).Off-topic, I just learned that one of Obama's economic advisers is Larry Summers, who was forced out of his job as Harvard's President after making some potentially sexist remarks. Just another reason for women to want to vote for Obama, he understands their concerns. [/snark]Do you disagree with Summers' belief that there could be a 'nature' component to the gender mix in science?
** spoiler omitted **
I don't think there is any question there is at least some Biological component to gender differences. There is also no question that there is a tremendous cultural and psychological one. I think the interesting questions is how much is strictly Biology and how much is everything else. The only way I could think of that you could really find out would be to run an experiment where you followed cohort groups from birth and had them separated into different environmental and social conditions and maintained a control group that was environment "neutral". Of course, such an experiment would be highly unethical and insanely difficult to keep scientifically valid.
From a purely Biological perspective, females have a lot of advantages over males. That said, one of the few areas in which males have the clear advantage (on average they have larger and stronger musculoskeletal structures) is extremely important to hunter gatherer societies like those that existed early in human history. So at least some of the origins of sexual identity can be traced to those early cultures where males hunted for food while females raised the children and tended to the village (because the males were out hunting). If you take a cultural anthropology course (which I highly recommend), you can see that some of those primitive cultures still exist in primitive parts of the world. They give a rather unique insight into what our early ancestors might have been like. From a cultural perspective it shows how a single Biological difference (that stronger musculoskeletal structure making it more likely the males could survive and succeed at hunting) can be magnified into a cultural gender role structure (females as gatherers and child rearers).
Now to be clear, I am not saying that females are inferior or incapable of doing what males do and did in early cultures. In fact there are entire tribes where those roles are reversed (see Amazons), and some of that is attributable to selective advantage. Which is to say the females were stronger in those tribes and over generations of selection got bigger and stronger while males did not. That is heredity with inheritance at its finest.
In any event, I am sure there is a biological component to this gender discussion. If anything females have a more complete genetic code (as the y chormosome is really nothing more than an incomplete x chromosome), and their are far more sex linked diseases that affect men than women for that reason. How those biological differences have influenced our cultural gender biases is a more complex question though. In any event, Obama's connections to a man that once said such a biological component existed is just another attempt by the right to make this about who Obama knows than what his policies are. That is the tactic of a group desparate to find anything they can to go after Obama because they are losing. Simple as that. We will see if it works come election day, but right now the republican party is worried.
In any event, I am sure there is a biological component to this gender discussion. If anything females have a more complete genetic code (as the y chormosome is really nothing more than an incomplete x chromosome), and their are far more sex linked diseases that affect men than women for that reason. How those biological differences have influenced our cultural gender biases is a more complex question though. In any event, Obama's connections to a man that once said such a biological component existed is just another attempt by the right to make this about who Obama knows than what his policies are. That is the tactic of a group desparate to find anything they can to go after Obama because they are losing. Simple as that. We will see if it works come election day, but right now the republican party is worried.
To be clear, the fellow in question not only suggested there was a biological component but supposably said that the three main things negatively effecting women's success in the sciences in order of strength of effect were:
1. Desire to have children, thus not put in the same time.2. Biological differences.
3. Social pressures.
So the women who made the claim were saying he was, as the President of one of the most elite universities in this country, suggesting that sexism in the system is less of an issue than the biological differences.
I have no idea if that is true that he said that, but it does seem to be less than desireable for a candidate who has been described as being sexist from people in his own party for his treatment of his democratic rival to pick this guy.
Heck, look what happened to Sandra Bernhart when it got out that she might have made a crude comment about Palin possibly getting raped. A women's organization that worked with rape victims chose to not have her perform at their fundraiser because they didn't want to be seen supporting such statements. She now claims she never made the statements but still she was disinvited (she has said she understands their position).
I guess what I'm asking is why would Obama even tolerate the appearance of supporting a possible sexist? And to point out that this guy was given a "lack of confidence" vote by a majority of Harvard professors as well as being critized by women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members. Hardly key members of the "right".
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I guess what I'm asking is why would Obama even tolerate the appearance of supporting a possible sexist? And to point out that this guy was given a "lack of confidence" vote by a majority of Harvard professors as well as being critized by women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members. Hardly key members of the "right".
(When my doctor advised me on my marriage, I thought it was funny and sweet. When she advised me on applied linguistics, I took it with a grain of salt. When she advised me to see a physiotherapist, I went.)
I guess what I'm asking is why would Obama even tolerate the appearance of supporting a possible sexist? And to point out that this guy was given a "lack of confidence" vote by a majority of Harvard professors as well as being critized by women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members. Hardly key members of the "right".
I wasn't aware that Obama was asking him to advise on women's issues. I figured Obama was asking him to advise on the economy based upon his experience as the 71st US Secretary of the Treasury. I also wouldn't expect Obama to invite him to advise on issues of race or affirmative action, considering his dispute with one of America's top scholars on issues of racism. The 'lack of confidence' vote by Harvard faculty may have also had to do with other administrative changes he was making. I hear he's a maverick. (Yes, you still have to take a drink). Also, Margaret Cho might make a better point of comparison than Sandra Bernhardt. Cho made some anti-Palin comments and Obama disinvited her. If your complaint is that Obama is going to get advice from people on their areas of expertise despite having pissed people off when invited to speak about areas that weren't their areas of expertise ... Well, I don't know what to say. (When my doctor advised me on my marriage, I thought it was funny and sweet. When she advised me on applied linguistics, I took it with a grain of salt. When she advised me to see a physiotherapist, I went.)
So bigots are ok, as long as they just talk about their areas of expertise. That does explain the whole Rev. Wright situation I guess.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
So bigots are ok, as long as they just talk about their areas of expertise. That does explain the whole Rev. Wright situation I guess.
I was thinking 'conservatives are ok, as long as they just talk about their areas of expertise' but if you want to say that anyone who criticizes an African American or proposes biological differences exist is a bigot, that's up to you.
Man, these politically correct pro-McCain people!!!
So bigots are ok, as long as they just talk about their areas of expertise. That does explain the whole Rev. Wright situation I guess.I was thinking 'conservatives are ok, as long as they just talk about their areas of expertise' but if you want to say that anyone who criticizes an African American or proposes biological differences exist is a bigot, that's up to you.
Man, these politically correct pro-McCain people!!!
Yup, all those women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members, you know, the people that had a problem with Mr. Summers.
|
|
Here are General Powell's remarks regarding Obama in their entirety. They are rather lengthy so I have spoilered them for space.
And I've also been disappointed, frankly, by some of the approaches that Senator McCain has taken recently, or his campaign ads, on issues that are not really central to the problems that the American people are worried about. This Bill Ayers situation that's been going on for weeks became something of a central point of the campaign. But Mr. McCain says that he's a washed-out terrorist. Well, then, why do we keep talking about him? And why do we have these robocalls going on around the country trying to suggest that, because of this very, very limited relationship that Senator Obama has had with Mr. Ayers, somehow, Mr. Obama is tainted. What they're trying to connect him to is some kind of terrorist feelings. And I think that's inappropriate.
Now, I understand what politics is all about. I know how you can go after one another, and that's good. But I think this goes too far. And I think it has made the McCain campaign look a little narrow. It's not what the American people are looking for. And I look at these kinds of approaches to the campaign and they trouble me. And the party has moved even further to the right, and Governor Palin has indicated a further rightward shift. I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration. I'm also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourself in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I'm troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.
So, when I look at all of this and I think back to my Army career, we've got two individuals, either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities--and we have to take that into account--as well as his substance--he has both style and substance--he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world--onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I'll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.
Edit: Just for the record, I don't think that Gen. Powell endorsing Obama is case closed, just as it would not have been cased closed for McCain if he had endorsed McCain. The people who have not made up their minds yet in this election have not been shallow enough to be swayed by the cult of personality that has built up around Obama and Palin, and I don't think that they are shallow enough to be swayed by an endorsement by Colin Powell either.
Here are General Powell's remarks regarding Obama in their entirety.
Thank you, David.
That's actually a pretty good speech.
|
|
Here are General Powell's remarks regarding Obama in their entirety.Thank you, David.
That's actually a pretty good speech.
You're welcome. I thought it was pretty good too. There really were no suprises in it. Gen. Powell has never hidden the fact that he is more of a moderate than a conservative. There was a part in the interview a little later that I did not add where the moderator asked Gen. Powell if he was endorsing Barack Obama because he was African American and Gen. Powell said no, and added that if that were the reason for his endorsement he would have done it months ago. Colin Powell is a very classy man, and one that I greatly admire.
Edit: Wow, I even managed to anticipate that someone would bring up the race card.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yup, all those women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members, you know, the people that had a problem with Mr. Summers.
So bigots are ok, as long as they just talk about their areas of expertise. That does explain the whole Rev. Wright situation I guess.I was thinking 'conservatives are ok, as long as they just talk about their areas of expertise' but if you want to say that anyone who criticizes an African American or proposes biological differences exist is a bigot, that's up to you.
Man, these politically correct pro-McCain people!!!
Nah, I meant you. After all, you called the man a bigot. I don't go around calling people sexist or racist as easily as you do.
This just in...Colin Powell is black.
Wow. Classy.
I had forgotten that apparently people aren't allowed to hold political opinions of their own and are required to endorse and vote for the person who looks the most like them! </sarcasm>
Nah, I meant you. After all, you called the man a bigot. I don't go around calling people sexist or racist as easily as you do.
Actually I never did, but whatever.
Actually I never did, but whatever.
So bigots are ok...
I hope you understand how this might have been misunderstood as calling the man a bigot.
Actually I never did, but whatever.So bigots are ok...I hope you understand how this might have been misunderstood as calling the man a bigot.
Sure it can be misunderstood to mean that, but the question was a general question. Where is the line drawn. Clearly some people do believe this fellow was a bigot (the women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members I mentioned earlier). So where is the line for working with bigots or percieved bigots (which in the end is what we will usually only be able to go by).
Apparently Tarren believes that it is fine to work with people who are at the very least are percieved to be bigots by some as long as he is only used to advise areas they are considered experts on. Of course Tarren has stated he doesn't believe that individuals are bigots but instead systems are, or something like that, I'm sure he'll be willing to clarify it further for us.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Actually I never did, but whatever.So bigots are ok...I hope you understand how this might have been misunderstood as calling the man a bigot.
I think pres man is playing it tongue-in-cheek and throwing out arguments he doesn't endorse. Still, he keeps it clean so three cheers for pres man.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Actually I never did, but whatever.So bigots are ok...I hope you understand how this might have been misunderstood as calling the man a bigot.Sure it can be misunderstood to mean that, but the question was a general question. Where is the line drawn. Clearly some people do believe this fellow was a bigot (the women’s groups, women scientists, and Harvard faculty members I mentioned earlier). So where is the line for working with bigots or percieved bigots (which in the end is what we will usually only be able to go by).
Apparently Tarren believes that it is fine to work with people who are at the very least are percieved to be bigots by some as long as he is only used to advise areas they are considered experters on. Of course Tarren has stated he doesn't believe that individuals are bigots but instead systems are, or something like that, I'm sure he'll be willing to clarify it further for us.
If we didn't work with people who are perceived as bigots by some we would end up with a totalitarian state. Seriously, prejudism is so rampant in our society and issues of gender and race are so contentious that we are all compromised.
If we didn't work with people who are perceived as bigots by some we would end up with a totalitarian state. Seriously, prejudism is so rampant in our society and issues of gender and race are so contentious that we are all compromised.
Right. Sorry, I should have said, choosing to work with some people over others, despite a public incident. I mean everyone is a bigot on one level or another, to one degree or another. But when you choose to work someone that you don't have to who has a history of controversy, well that says something about you.
|
|
To be clear, the fellow in question not only suggested there was a biological component but supposably said that the three main things negatively effecting women's success in the sciences in order of strength of effect were:
1. Desire to have children, thus not put in the same time.
2. Biological differences.
3. Social pressures.
I think the jump from "possible sexist" to "bigot" is pretty large. I was a student at Harvard at the time of the remarks, and the general feeling on the law school campus, at least, was that it was ridiculous and unfortunate that Summers lost his job over the issue. My reading of it is that Summers believed that there was some evidence of biological difference between the sexes with respect to certain disciplines, and that he thought it should be the subject of further research. Hardly "bigotry," if you ask me, but judge for yourself. Additionally, here is his apology letter in which he notes that he underestimated the impact of socialization and discrimination, and notes that his original comments had been entirely speculative.
If I may speak for Tarren, I believe the point he was making with the doctor analogy is that Obama should be able to rely on Summers' economic experience without endorsing his statements on other issues. I agree that this would not be acceptable if Summers was a card-carrying member of the KKK or something that made certain views a keystone of his identity, but in this context, the man made one ill-advised speech which was blown way out of proportion. He should not be permanently excluded from public service, and Obama should not be considered a sexist by proxy.
Hey Pres, Gary and I want you to join our trinity of evil by changing your avatar to match ours. What do you say? We have cookies.
Yes pres man, come and embrace the dark side of the force. *starts breathing like Darth Vader*
|
|
Right. Sorry, I should have said, choosing to work with some people over others, despite a public incident. I mean everyone is a bigot on one level or another, to one degree or another. But when you choose to work someone that you don't have to who has a history of controversy, well that says something about you.
I strongly disagree with this as a standard for choosing who is or is not qualified to work in the public sector. Groups of people can become hysterical about nearly anything. Controversy can be manufactured. The facts should decide whether someone is a bigot or not, rather than a "history of controversy."
|
|
Of course Obama could have picked a worse running mate. A certain female governor from Alaska comes to mind.Of course that is your opinion. Let's not confuse opinion with fact.
Yes, I have the opinion that a barely functional literate who whips up hatred across the country in a laughably inarticulate way, with a history of charging rape victims for rape kits is infact a worse VP candidate then the leading military leader of our age.
A shocking opinion, for sure. And of course it's my opinion. What else would it be?
Or you can see the whole interview and read the transcript here.
You can see some of the interview here.
Great. I had been looking for that. I had only posted the YouTube link in the first two hours after I heard the news.
Must say that the full speech is even better.
|
|
Yes, I have the opinion that a barely functional literate who whips up hatred across the country in a laughably inarticulate way, with a history of charging rape victims for rape kits is infact a worse VP candidate then the leading military leader of our age.A shocking opinion, for sure. And of course it's my opinion. What else would it be?
[snark]Of course I could also say that Joe Biden is pandering plagerist who has a tendency to stick his foot in his mouth and make racist statements and is the ultimate Washington insider, but I won't.[/snark] ;p
Hey Pres, Gary and I want you to join our trinity of evil by changing your avatar to match ours. What do you say? We have cookies.
No thanks. This is the avatar people "gnomey" for. :D
is the ultimate Washington insider, but I won't. ;p
In what manner is Biden an insider that McCain is not? For that matter, why is being an insider assumed to be worse than being an 'outsider'?
|
|
Somehow I don't see plagiarism as being a serious thing. Especially compared to, oh, I don't know...
'Palling around with Terrorists'
'We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.'
Or the good old charging Rape victims for Rape kits. Or heck, just her belief that Dinosaurs lived with men and that the world is 10,000 years old. Or her belief that Global Warming isn't man made.
Plagiarism doesn't really compare to that.
|
|
is the ultimate Washington insider, but I won't. ;pIn what manner is Biden an insider that McCain is not? For that matter, why is being an insider assumed to be worse than being an 'outsider'?
I personally don't think that being an insider is bad, but Obama based his campaign on not being an insider, hence the comment about his running mate.
I have the opinion that a barely functional literate who whips up hatred across the country
You're accusing Palin of stirring hatred? Do you ever read what you type? It sounds like a lot of hate is coming out of you.
Obama based his campaign on not being an insider, hence the comment about his running mate.
David, I think you need to support this with some source. He has been in the US Senate two years so... I would be surprised if he based his campaign on this.
Cheers
|
|
Somehow I don't see plagiarism as being a serious thing. Especially compared to, oh, I don't know...
'Palling around with Terrorists'
'We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation.'Or the good old charging Rape victims for Rape kits. Or heck, just her belief that Dinosaurs lived with men and that the world is 10,000 years old. Or her belief that Global Warming isn't man made.
Plagiarism doesn't really compare to that.
We seem to be getting off the subject. There are plenty of threads for hating on Sarah Palin. This is about Colin Powell endorsing Obama. [sarcasm]You should know, you started the thread.[/sarcasm]
I strongly disagree with this as a standard for choosing who is or is not qualified to work in the public sector.
So we should hold the public sector to a lower ethical standard than the private one?
Groups of people can become hysterical about nearly anything. Controversy can be manufactured. The facts should decide whether someone is a bigot or not, rather than a "history of controversy."
Hysterical? A term almost exclusively used to describe women.
Anyway, here is someone else's take on this.
It is just a little silly to say, "I take your concerns seriously. Oh by the way I have this guy that got in trouble for making comments." I mean that is pretty much thumbing his nose at those people that took the concern of sexism seriously.