Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More importantly, she has no desire to overcome her ignorance, to learn and do hard study of issues and events. The detailed Vanity Fair feature awhile back on her explained that Palin does not think that ideas, learning and thinking are important elements either of governance or in life. She is the classic mutt and she is proud to be so.
I'm always a little amused about people talking about intelligence. While we would not want a moron in the White House, most of the presidents that we have had lately aren't all that "smart".
By a simple measure of SAT scores, which gives colleges a good idea of the acedemic levels of prospective students, Bush and Clinton were not all that great. They were above average but they didn't blow the tests out of the water like some students do. In fact as I remember Bill Clinton's was just above 1000.
It isn't raw intelligence that makes one successful in their particular endeavor. I'll never forget back in my school teaching days looking at the standardized test scores of 3 sophomore boys. All three scored in the 99th percentile in all the test areas. You can't get any higher than that. I have had the chance to watch those boys grow up and they are in their late 30s now. Only one is successful, the others are failures. But they are all very intelligent.
Education helps and intelligence helps one to get an education. But where you get your education also forms one way of thinking so that we get a "group think". A good leader understands that and looks to find many different types of inelligent people to guide them.
Elitists tend to gravitate toward only one side of an argument while a good leader will get counsel from many different types of thinkers.
That is not to say that Palin would be a good leader or not. But since I am essentially a conservative I would agree with her policies more often than I agree with Obama's. So I would vote for her...not based on her intelligence but on her basic conservative principles.
But who knows, maybe a dark horse will come out of the crowd. I'd like to know more about Bobby Jindal for instance.
Location: Silver Spring, Maryland / But still having San Diego / Eastlake withdrawal damn it !!!
340 posts, read 1,412,481 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneyear
she can apoligize all she wants, fact is, she doesn't have it in her, she has a big family that needs her, and she doesn't have a clue how to handle all of this publicity, she wants to be normal, but in all actuallity she couldn't do anything more than sign a book. She has bit off more than she can chew. And she knows it. She is taking the money from this book and will be running into obscurity.
lets all click our heels together in unison !!! theirs no place like home, theirs no place like home !!!!
Wishful thinking there "Dorothy" I mean Oneyear........you can't wish her away....and your worse "nightmare" is about to come true...................
SHE IS HERE TO STAY..............
PS - I heard on Huffington ComPost that if you spin her Audio book cd backwards that it says her real goal for power is to overthrow Canada !!!!
It must be true....right ?????
I'm always a little amused about people talking about intelligence. While we would not want a moron in the White House, most of the presidents that we have had lately aren't all that "smart".
By a simple measure of SAT scores, which gives colleges a good idea of the acedemic levels of prospective students, Bush and Clinton were not all that great. They were above average but they didn't blow the tests out of the water like some students do. In fact as I remember Bill Clinton's was just above 1000.
It isn't raw intelligence that makes one successful in their particular endeavor. I'll never forget back in my school teaching days looking at the standardized test scores of 3 sophomore boys. All three scored in the 99th percentile in all the test areas. You can't get any higher than that. I have had the chance to watch those boys grow up and they are in their late 30s now. Only one is successful, the others are failures. But they are all very intelligent.
Education helps and intelligence helps one to get an education. But where you get your education also forms one way of thinking so that we get a "group think". A good leader understands that and looks to find many different types of inelligent people to guide them.
Elitists tend to gravitate toward only one side of an argument while a good leader will get counsel from many different types of thinkers.
That is not to say that Palin would be a good leader or not. But since I am essentially a conservative I would agree with her policies more often than I agree with Obama's. So I would vote for her...not based on her intelligence but on her basic conservative principles.
But who knows, maybe a dark horse will come out of the crowd. I'd like to know more about Bobby Jindal for instance.
You hit the nail directly on the head. One of the great lessons in life is that intelligence does not necessarily guarantee success. As you mention, many liberal elitists are rooted in the world of Acedemia, where successs is based on test scores, logic, reasoning ability, etc... But what many liberals fail to realize is that Acedemia IS NOT the real world. The real world is imperfect and irrational, so are the people living in it. Therefore success is often determined by other intangibles such as determination, charisma, personality, etc.
Some people come to this realization shortly after leaving school (at whatever level) and become successful. Others do not, and go through life with an elitist attitude, forever looking down on those they deem as stupid but yet never understanding how those same people can be successful, often more so than themselves. I'm sure jealousy contributes to it as well.
One of my personal beliefs along this line too is that the longer a person spends in the world of Acedemia, the harder it is for them to finally wake up and face the real world upon leaving - while some never can.
I was more interested in the Alaskan reaction to her, than to Sarah herself.
Bottom line is, she is rather hum-drum, and yes, EXACTLY like every other politician, just as you stated above.
She was tapped as vice president for a political stunt to gain the democratic women vote that would have gone to Hilary. Instead of her being smart enough to realize that, she goes on believing she is some revolutionary idol.
My point is exactly the same as you are making. She is a total and complete politician, and nothing to place on a pedestal. The wisdom she has to offer isnt worth the trees that were killed to print on.
Not all Alaskan's hate Palin, there are those that do, but they are in the minority except here on the this Forum, other "Alaska" Forum's are pretty different.
Palin has both good and bad like any other politician has. The problem is that most of Palin's "Bad" is based on hearsay and people are not paying attention to the full story, just hearing what they want.
Obama was blamed for not saluting in a photo because everyone else was in the photo. Turns out the video of the same photo was the music "Hail to the Chief" was being played and he was not suppose to salute himself with his hand over his heart.
But those on the "Right" were lambasting him for not putting his hand over his heart, and they were just as guilty of being "stupid" for not knowing the entire story.
Here I get to see all the anti Palin statements that are lacking in fact as well, which portrays those making them as equally as "Stupid" as the Right are when they jump to false implications.
Ya know, I have yet to hear her on national TV in an interview to mention frivolous ethics complaints...or am I wrong and missed something?
Since they were all bogus, why waste time in bringing them up unless she was questioned about them. Alaskans in general know they were bogus and all thrown out. There is some that have no clue, but they don't know much about anything anyway unless it is just basic gossip which is always more entertaining than fact.
Or even any other common-sense definition, either.
There is no such "Legal" definition as "Stalking" on Forums, but there is "Intent" which is more referred to "A Troll"... and that is clearly demonstrated repeatedly, and someone with a shred of common-sense can pick that out without too much effort.
Uh, yeah. You must have missed the posts....mostly deleted now, in which I defended her against the attacks that a troll was making regarding her family. And I personally debunked Andrew Sullivan's BS about Track Palin not being a high school graduate by posting the roster of the graduating class of Wasilla High (2005) on his website. I've spent a lot of time on the political forum defending her decision to take her children with her on the campaign trail rather then leaving them in Wasilla where the yellow press was skulking through every garbage can in town looking for dirt.
Her diction? I've merely pointed out that during her stint as a sportscaster in Anchorage, the doggone by gosh faux hillbilly ruse was very much not in evidence. I personally think that the down home act was dreamed up by the McCain advisers.
Although I agree with you that most of the "attacks" on Palin on this board and elsewhere have indeed involved personal issues concerning who she is as a human being, I haven't been a huge part of that. Some of it has rather left me cold. And one of the hardest things about the past election was the misconceptions that so many lower 48-ers had about Alaska. I used to call it "Google Alaska"---they would Google something and then post it as an absolute truth.
My aversion to Palin isn't a superficial one. It may be so with some but I would prefer not to be lumped in with them.
I don't know about the accent, my dad grew up in Mississippi and doesn't sound a bit like that there in Wasilla. But you get him around a few folks with the accent and he starts sounding just like them and he hasn't changed a bit.
I have no Idea of how Palin grew up with her family's accent from where her parents are from, but because she spoke without an accent on TV, doesn't mean she didn't have one.
I don't know anyone that I can say has accent that is "Stupid" because of it... ok, some... But mostly people talk the way they do.
I have friends that are Alaskan Natives, and that are very intelligent and when they want can speak flawless English, but sometimes slip to the "Native" accent. I don't think of them any less smart for it, they still communicate what they want just fine.
Palin can talk with a Great Lakes Accent, or what we call "Plain English" for us in Alaska, but isn't normal for someone else, to whom we sound funny and maybe concidered stupid by their "Racist Views".
I think attacking anyone for their accent is a waste of time.
You hit the nail directly on the head. One of the great lessons in life is that intelligence does not necessarily guarantee success. As you mention, many liberal elitists are rooted in the world of Acedemia, where successs is based on test scores, logic, reasoning ability, etc... But what many liberals fail to realize is that Acedemia IS NOT the real world. The real world is imperfect and irrational, so are the people living in it. Therefore success is often determined by other intangibles such as determination, charisma, personality, etc.
Some people come to this realization shortly after leaving school (at whatever level) and become successful. Others do not, and go through life with an elitist attitude, forever looking down on those they deem as stupid but yet never understanding how those same people can be successful, often more so than themselves. I'm sure jealousy contributes to it as well.
One of my personal beliefs along this line too is that the longer a person spends in the world of Acedemia, the harder it is for them to finally wake up and face the real world upon leaving - while some never can.
Considering that you can't spell academia I assume you didn't spend much time there. And probably neither did those who bash intellect and education so much. You are dead wrong.
Academia gives people the ability to develop facile analytical minds with a knowledge base as a frame of reference. An understanding of methods and outcomes along with a keen awareness of historical perspective, economic principles, and international culture helps not hinders a president.
The objective testing mind of science and reason hitched to the understanding and empathy that sociology, psychology, and the Humanities offer cannot be put in the same league with street smarts.
A well-schooled smart person could have no common sense. Could have no skill set for personal interaction. That is true. But also charisma is only good as an add-on for leadership. Personality has its place. But that does not replace the core necessity of a leader, thinker, doer, and manager. It is skill, knowledge (read education) and a sharp curious intellect as well interpersonal skills that become the minimum for qualificatiomn. Minimm--from that starting point you can begin comparing candidates for office. SP doesn't make the cut.
Street smarts are great for the street--but the United States of America needs much more. And I have seen no sign Ms Palin even has street smarts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
