Why the difference - Biden/Palin
Find a Conversation
Why the difference - Biden/Palin
| Thu, 10-02-2008 - 11:53am |
Ok so Biden has said some stupid things over the course of time as has Palin. Why is Palin considered "stupid"? Does anyone else see a double standard or is it just me?

Pages
Thanks for your remarks A.C.M.:
"It's just that over such inconsequential drivel like what has been discussed and debated in this forum I can't really justify the effort, even the slight effort required for the documentation you seem to want."
This remark was intended to stimulate the forum's group's inate creativity-that is, I was deliberately trying to cause a controversy.
Thanks for taking the time to comment:
You are never under any obligation to support any of the material you claim as fact. And certainly I've never seen anyone here ask for references properly formated,. I've no doubt you know how to properly format your references, but then so does my 9th grader. For anyone who needs help, sites like this are a terrific resource http://www.easybib.com/
I'm glad you have a ninth-grader who is doing well in school. Here's a good, properly referenced source for him or her in case they are taking American Literature next term:
John Carroll University, Harlem Renaissance Multimedia Resource, Downloaded October 7, 2007 from URL: http://www.jcu.edu/harlem/Politics/Page_1.htm
I'm sure your professors appreciate your properly formatted and referenced works, but in the case such as the claim that inspired this subthread all that was needed was a link to show that you didn't make up your claim that Katie Couric heavily edited her interview with Sarah Palin and that the interview in its entirity shows a much more credible performance by Palin.
This statement of yours implies several things. First you imply that I could have made up a claim about the editing of the Palin interview. Second, you insist that a reference was needed to support my claim. Common knowledge information doesn't really need documentation and you know it. It was all over every news outlet and everyone with a TV or radio knows about it. It is common practice for the networks to edit material to fit certain time slots. How nit-picky can we be? Why do you think the Governor wants live interviews from now on?
As I said I appreciate those who are clear that they do not intend to support their claims, it makes it much easier to figure out whose opinions likely have any sort of credibility.
As I mentioned earlier, I will support any claim that I determine needs supporting. For you to imply that I stated otherwise is inaccurate. Please look again at my remarks and quote to me where I said I do not intend to support my claims. What I said from 4365.55 was "When I want to cite reference material at an appropriate time, I most certainly will."
It was also nice to see the shift from "I don't have time" to "I don't want to", folks are rarely that honest.
I didn't shift at all. Surely you can see that the time shortage was just one component of why I chose not to play the poster's little game.
This statement of yours implies several things. First you imply that I could have made up a claim about the editing of the Palin interview. Second, you insist that a reference was needed to support my claim. Common knowledge information doesn't really need documentation and you know it. It was all over every news outlet and everyone with a TV or radio knows about it. It is common practice for the networks to edit material to fit certain time slots. How nit-picky can we be? Why do you think the Governor wants live interviews from now on?
No one took issue with your claim the interview was edited, how disengenuous to pretend, now, that this was the concern.
"The unedited version shows a much more commendable performance by Sarah".
This is not a fact. This is a conclusion. That is why many of us wanted a link to the unedited video - so we could draw our own conclusions based on the primary source of information. Since you cannot (or are unwilling to) provide such a link, I can only assume that you have reiterated someone else's conclusion (Foxnews, some blogger somewhere?), and that you have not seen the unedited tape at all.
Certainly, if I am wrong, you could always provide such a link now...
I'm not sure if wila04 has a better source or not, but here is where I had read the unedited interview.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview
The bold lines are the ones that were cut.
I wish I could find actual video unedited instead of just the transcript.
Thank you!
I would agree there are some... interesting edits in there. I would definitely love to see the footage - and see if she seems as unsure as she does in what was actually shown.
Palin definitely does not have a way with words. She would come off a lot more knowledgeable if someone would teach her to use shorter sentences. That is, assuming she is actually knowledgeable (ya' know I had to say it :)
Palin to Gibson "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."
My original remark that caused such consternation with the credibility police:
<<Did you notice the editing job Couric pulled on the audience.
I didn't say she was stupid. Please show me where I did.
I asked you you to name policies where Palin showed ignorance.
Pages