What I don't understand is why conservatives (most conservatives--see Peggy Noonan's off-camera remarks) aren't being honest about how absurd this woman's candidacy is. It's okay to want McCain. It's okay to believe in conservative tenets. But why is it necessary to pretend that this woman is appropriate as a potential president? It boggles the mind.
It's as if, in the fever to get a Republican elected, they will accept--no, vehemently defend--any crazy-ass shit the GOP pulls. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can believe in conservative values and still call a bad, dangerous decision what it is.
Preemptive retort to the bashers: try, in your response, to make a reasoned argument as to Palin's suitability as the potential leader of the free world instead of seizing on my tone (how condescending!) or ignoring my point and attacking Obama because it's easier than coming up with anything remotely plausible as to why Sarah Palin should be in line for the most powerful position in the world.
Seriously: all thoughtful, dedicated conservatives: can you actually make the case that this is a wise choice for the country? I would sooo respect a conservative who could just say, "I'm voting McCain, but yeah, this is ridiculous. I ain't gonna lie." I mean come on! We're all people here. Just be straight.
I was about to say the same thing Senor. I noticed that when I moved the slider all the way over, the country was just a a red bubblefest. Their men kicked it.
@Polx: I think it's clear throughout that these savants are not "useless." They seem to be making contributions on many different levels. And to make a meaningful point about how these people are not geniuses, you would need to explain how you conceive of genius, or what the official, complete definition of that word is. If the definition of genius is at all fluid, I'm sure these people belong somewhere in the constellation. If the definition is narrow and rigid, then maybe you're right.
They're certainly extraordinary, and full of potential both within their own lives and for the greater community as we seek to expand our understanding of cognition and the brain.
And at the risk of starting some tedious crap, it's amusing that there are still people around promising a "landslide" defeat for the Democrats. I mean, we don't have landslides anymore. Whoever wins, will not win by a great margin.
Meanwhile, many of us who watched a shadow of a man deliver his acceptance speech would suggest that the mere notion of that man steamrolling his vibrant opposition is a contention born of a mind firmly mired in an alternative, upside down, dramatically implausible reality.
The only real objection I have to this is that the tattoo looks really poorly done. A lifetime of bad ink is a fate worse than a possibly ill-advised choice of artwork.
That said, if there were a political figure that symbolized more than a particular election cycle and whose image could be appropriate as an emblem of a greater, more enduring principle or ideal (the motivation behind many tattoos), it's probably Obama.
Deadly! Also deadly, if you are distracted by them when you should be watching the road: sparrows, sunlight, little babies, jolly ranchers stuck in your teeth, crazy ladies, floating plastic bags with strange grace, hunger pangs, and the entirety of one's memory and hopes for the future.
Poor Republican minorities *should* be an oxymoron, but some apparently don't understand the nature of the Republican party. It seems they respond to the "family values" part of the Republican platform, but miss the part about the Republican party caring Not At All about the poor. So let me repeat: Poor people, the Republican party does not care about you. Stop voting for power-hungry old white men that only fight, and fight dirty, for the rich and elite. These people do not have your interests at heart.
The party has gotten away for a long time with pretending to be the party of good ole boys, salt of the earth types. They have ranches. They clear brush. The shoot friends in the face while hunting. It's all very Middle America, except the part where the ranch is a mansion, the brush-clearing is a relaxing distraction from the rigors of being on vacation most of the time, and the hunting is an exclusive pastime in a rarified game reserve available only to those VIPs with enough cash.
The Democrats are not perfect, but at least they CONSIDER the poor and the disadvantaged. If you think the Republican party cares, you simply have not been paying attention. For decades.
I won't speak to Zoltan, who doesn't know how to use the word "purport," but I will say, to Henryrama, that the website you linked to has a rabid anti-Muslim slant. So your term "debunked" is inaccurate. You could say that a random, highly biased website has countered the poll and given a rebuttal, but to suggest the poll is trash based on the website you refer to is an example of misinformation.
Feel free to cite any other "acamedics" on this issue, but the one you offered is garbage.
I should have registered my name before another Violet showed up, but oh well.
Misspellings really only hurt the writer, and even if you "legalized" these misspellings, they would still exist as indicators of the author's lack of command of the language, with whatever attendant deficiencies you associate with that.
My beef is that it's just not that difficult to figure out the correct spellings for words with crucial distinctions like there/they're/their so that both the writer's intentions and the reader's comprehension are in harmony. I've seen people use the different spellings of those homonyms in the same paragraph, incorrectly. If you're going to take a stab at using the different forms, why not learn what they mean?
There means there. It's right there. They're means they are. It's pretty self-evident. Their means possession. You can remember that one because it's the one that's not the other two.
The relative simplicity of learning these spellings makes the writer who has not taken the time to do so seem truly ignorant, perhaps unfairly, and wrecks the credibility of the author, even if his points have merit. So you do yourself a favor if you take a minute to write correctly: you create a foundation upon which your ideas and opinions can be absorbed without the distraction, and the contingent reliability issues, of improper spelling.
Not his funniest, but to those who are pointing out the low quality and crudeness: that's part of the joke. His statements are crude so as to underline the absurdity of the notion that women are only valuable for their sexuality. And the poor production values are there for the same reason--to highlight the guy's, and by extension his ideas', inanity. Satire!
What I don't understand is why conservatives (most conservatives--see Peggy Noonan's off-camera remarks) aren't being honest about how absurd this woman's candidacy is. It's okay to want McCain. It's okay to believe in conservative tenets. But why is it necessary to pretend that this woman is appropriate as a potential president? It boggles the mind.
It's as if, in the fever to get a Republican elected, they will accept--no, vehemently defend--any crazy-ass shit the GOP pulls. You can walk and chew gum at the same time. You can believe in conservative values and still call a bad, dangerous decision what it is.
Preemptive retort to the bashers: try, in your response, to make a reasoned argument as to Palin's suitability as the potential leader of the free world instead of seizing on my tone (how condescending!) or ignoring my point and attacking Obama because it's easier than coming up with anything remotely plausible as to why Sarah Palin should be in line for the most powerful position in the world.
Seriously: all thoughtful, dedicated conservatives: can you actually make the case that this is a wise choice for the country? I would sooo respect a conservative who could just say, "I'm voting McCain, but yeah, this is ridiculous. I ain't gonna lie." I mean come on! We're all people here. Just be straight.
They're certainly extraordinary, and full of potential both within their own lives and for the greater community as we seek to expand our understanding of cognition and the brain.
Meanwhile, many of us who watched a shadow of a man deliver his acceptance speech would suggest that the mere notion of that man steamrolling his vibrant opposition is a contention born of a mind firmly mired in an alternative, upside down, dramatically implausible reality.
That said, if there were a political figure that symbolized more than a particular election cycle and whose image could be appropriate as an emblem of a greater, more enduring principle or ideal (the motivation behind many tattoos), it's probably Obama.
The party has gotten away for a long time with pretending to be the party of good ole boys, salt of the earth types. They have ranches. They clear brush. The shoot friends in the face while hunting. It's all very Middle America, except the part where the ranch is a mansion, the brush-clearing is a relaxing distraction from the rigors of being on vacation most of the time, and the hunting is an exclusive pastime in a rarified game reserve available only to those VIPs with enough cash.
The Democrats are not perfect, but at least they CONSIDER the poor and the disadvantaged. If you think the Republican party cares, you simply have not been paying attention. For decades.
These are not your people.
Feel free to cite any other "acamedics" on this issue, but the one you offered is garbage.
Carry on!
Misspellings really only hurt the writer, and even if you "legalized" these misspellings, they would still exist as indicators of the author's lack of command of the language, with whatever attendant deficiencies you associate with that.
My beef is that it's just not that difficult to figure out the correct spellings for words with crucial distinctions like there/they're/their so that both the writer's intentions and the reader's comprehension are in harmony. I've seen people use the different spellings of those homonyms in the same paragraph, incorrectly. If you're going to take a stab at using the different forms, why not learn what they mean?
There means there. It's right there.
They're means they are. It's pretty self-evident.
Their means possession. You can remember that one because it's the one that's not the other two.
The relative simplicity of learning these spellings makes the writer who has not taken the time to do so seem truly ignorant, perhaps unfairly, and wrecks the credibility of the author, even if his points have merit. So you do yourself a favor if you take a minute to write correctly: you create a foundation upon which your ideas and opinions can be absorbed without the distraction, and the contingent reliability issues, of improper spelling.