Well, I've only read of couple of your posts too. So I guess both of us are at fault. I'm fairly new here, but I've made my share of posts that are more substantive than this. Now that you've informed me about your posts, I will look for them and pay more attention. Maybe you can direct me to some of your posts why you believe Sarah Palin is stupid.
Well, I've only read of couple of your posts too. So I guess both of us are at fault. I'm fairly new here, but I've made my share of posts that are more substantive than this. Now that you've informed me about your posts, I will look for them and pay more attention. Maybe you can direct me to some of your posts why you believe Sarah Palin is stupid.
I don't believe I said she was stupid. In the post I made in jest I called her a looney which implies irrationality. I'll provide a link to more in-depth posts if you like, but I can do a quick summary here.
I don't think she knew what the Bush Doctrine was, and this implies a certain lack of curiosity about the National political diaglogue.
I don't think she reads very much based upon her interview responses-this too implies a lack of intellectual engagement.
I have not heard her speak substantively and with the sort of nuance that implies a firm grasp of almost any issue.
Comments about foreign policy experience consisting of Alaska's proximity to Russia is a reflection of her intellectual dishonesty and disrespectful to the intelligence of the American people.
She seemed to be coached to repeat simple talking points during the debate and intentionally avoided any issue for which she had not prepared.
She did not seem to understand in regards to troopergate that the gentleman she fired could not legally go back and discipline the trooper for issues that had been investigated and closed with disciplinary action given before he took office. Alternately she understood but did not care which would speak to her perceived self-importance.
She will not discuss her views on anthropogenic global warming, but in the past stated she did not believe it was man-made. This is contrary to the conclusion reached by the consensus of the scientific community. Furthermore, she has stated more than once that she believes it is more important to address the problem rather than discuss the causes. This illustrates a fundamental irrationality in that it fails to connect the importance of understanding the cause of global warming so that an effective solution may be found.
She has suggested teaching the controversy of evolution in science classrooms may be beneficial. There is no scientific controversy on evolution. The controversy is a contrived one by those who wish to promote theological views as primary to scientific understanding. Evolution is one of the most well-evidenced theories in science.
She questioned a librarian about the possibility of banning books. That's a clear warning sign of anti-enlightenment thinking.
She was prayed over by a minister asking god to protect her from witches. A minister who actually drove a woman out of a town in Africa, accusing her of being a witch. This isn't anti-Americanism, it's ante-Americanism. Even the founding fathers had moved beyond accusations of witchcraft as a way to explain problems. These types of beliefs are irrational.
Rather than promote the advantages her ticket offered, she spent much of her campaign time making spurious accusations about Obama.
Her educational background is not distinguished. And that's being kind.
She has contradicted her own ticket on a number of occasions.
This is just a portion of the reasons off the top of my head. But you don't have to just take my word for it. I could simply point to the flight of several long-time Republican intellectuals and pundits in which they gave Palin's selection as VP as the primary reason for the withdrawal of their support or in some cases their endorsement of Obama. The same is true for several newspapers.
