Sam Harris on Sarah Palin

[_dartagnan]

It was incoherent, but not necessarily wrong. It seems she wanted to answer by simply saying the bail out would help the economy, and I guess she does say this... kinda. Ultimately, she is probably correct, but at the same time, like it has been pointed out, Palin went off onto too many tangents like health care and she got lost in her train of thought. It is like she was trying to remember all that Couric's question entailed, and Couric did mention health care. But it seems like she couldn't remember the rest of what she said ("housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy") so she just gave a vague overview about the economic value it would provide.

The question is kinda dumb anyway. Does Couric really support giving out 700 billion in stimulus checks? It makes no sense. The government isn't just giving out money for free, it is taking over loans and hopefully it will be in a position to get a lot of that money back. Some pundits are even talking about the possibility of the government eventually making a profit off of these loans, but I highly doubt that. In any event, Couric makes it sound like its just free money with no strings attached.

Isn't it a no-brainer that the bail out is going to essentially help Americans everywhere?

[_Analytics]

The question is kinda dumb anyway. Does Couric really support giving out 700 billion in stimulus checks? It makes no sense. The government isn't just giving out money for free, it is taking over loans and hopefully it will be in a position to get a lot of that money back. Some pundits are even talking about the possibility of the government eventually making a profit off of these loans, but I highly doubt that. In any event, Couric makes it sound like its just free money with no strings attached.

I doubt Couric would support $700 billion in stimulus checks. But it was a good way of asking why this is good for America. You gave a much better answer than Palin did--I think that is the type of answer Couric was fishing for.

Isn't it a no-brainer that the bail out is going to essentially help Americans everywhere?

The majority of the House--and possibly the majority of economists--disagree with you on this point.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Kevin,

*déjà vu!*

It was incoherent, but not necessarily wrong. It seems she wanted to answer by simply saying the bail out would help the economy, and I guess she does say this... kinda. Ultimately, she is probably correct, but at the same time, like it has been pointed out, Palin went off onto too many tangents like health care and she got lost in her train of thought. It is like she was trying to remember all that Couric's question entailed, and Couric did mention health care. But it seems like she couldn't remember the rest of what she said ("housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy") so she just gave a vague overview about the economic value it would provide.

You're a true believer, Kevin—undeterred by evidence, no matter how disconcerting.

I'm hard pressed to see the difference between you "the Palin apologist" and you "the BoAbr apologist."

Your, and others', idyllic hopes aside, Sarah Palin has spread her wings into John McCain's political albatross. You needn't accept my assessment; you need only consider the analyses of venerated conservative commentators like Kathleen Parker et al.

My best,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2008 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

[_Ray A]

You're a true believer, Kevin—undeterred by evidence, no matter how disconcerting.

I'm hard pressed to see the difference between you "the Palin apologist" and you "the BoAbr apologist."

But you have to admit, Brent, that at least Kevin isn't stuck like a gramaphone record playing the same thing over and over?

[_Ray A]

I think I really need to say a bit more about this, following Brent's comment. Well what a S***load of bastards some of you are. You hang on to Kevin when it suits you, and you DUMP him when it doesn't suit you. When he was an apologist he was Enemy Number One, but when had an honest change of opinion, you blew Hawaii sunshine up his ass.
Now you're trying to assail Kevin on his political views using, of all things, his past apologia for the Book of Abraham.

That is poor form. Kevin should rightly feel some disdain at this, I think, and wonder who is using him.

[_moksha]

If only she had been the mayor of Cicely, Alaska instead of Wasilla, then we could have more confidence in her ability to step into the presidential role when McCain becomes incapacitated.

[_moksha]

You hang on to Kevin when it suits you, and you DUMP him when it doesn't suit you.

Ray, I suspect that is because politics reflects the here and now and religion reflects the hereafter. What is immediate sometimes takes precedence.


.

[_Ray A]

Ray, I suspect that is because politics reflects the here and now and religion reflects the hereafter. What is immediate sometimes takes precedence.

LOL. I'd say that's a very "diplomatic" way of resolving it, Mok.

[_Brackite]

Now you're trying to assail Kevin on his political views using, of all things, his past apologia for the Book of Abraham.

That is poor form. Kevin should rightly feel some disdain at this, I think, and wonder who is using him.

Amen, Ray A.!!.

[_dartagnan]

Hi Brent, good to hear from you again. Any news on your book?

I can see why you would take this position but I'm hardly a "believer" in Palin the way you and others seem to think. I just think the woman has been maliciously maligned from the start, and who could really argue with this? Do you? The evidence is so strong it would take a willful neglect to pretend its not there. The new standard is unbelievable in the media. She is attacked from all corners of the liberal universe and there are literally dozens of lies invented about her mostly from the anti-religious left.

Yes I am aware of Parker's comments. Is this supposed to be shocking news? We've already talked about this. But how many democrats left the Obama or Hillary camp and joined McCain since he selected Palin? There were two major fund raisrs for Hillary who just joined the McCain camp. One was on CNN and was being attacked for doing it. But is their change of heart reason enough for others to join McCain? I would hope not. It certainly doesn't show much independent thought if we're suppose to follow what other people think and do.

What is more disconcerting anyway, a conservative columnist who thinks Palin is "out of her league" simply because she didn't do as well as she hoped in interviews, or a VP candidate who thinks his own running mate is "not ready to lead"? Remember, this is what Biden said of Obama during the debates.

I don't expect you to respond to this. Most Obama defenders don't. You see, only Palin is up for scrutiny and this is what I take exception to. Many liberals don't seem to realize they are not only voting against Palin/McCain, but they are voting for someone else. They don't even seem to care about who Biden is and what he brings to the table. His stupid comments and lack of knowledge doesn't matter. It only matters with Palin. But why? This is what I have been trying to get to the bottom of. Aren't we supposed to be comparing the two? Isn't that what election year is about?

What are we all arguing about here anyway? It seems we approach the issue with different expectations. I don't expect much from a VP candidate, and I never have. I think people in general don't expect much. Can you recall such a controversy over any other VP candidate? I have already illustrated the fact that even politicians throughout history have acknowledged that it is a rather superfluous position to begin with.

But suddenly with McCain, everyone expects her to walk on water. For the love of Pete, she isn't even allowed to read from a script without the media attacking her for it. Do we really think Obama and Biden don't have their own scripts prepared for them by speech writers? Who is really living in "La La land"? I don't think I am. I'm simply approaching this the way I do most issues. WIth a single standard.

The media standard has been set so high for her that with the slightest goof, she is accused of being a complete buffoon. Whens he doesn't give them teh ammunition they desire, they invent it from nothing. When I simply point out the double-standard, her attackers go silent. They don't want to argue the counterpoint. They want to go the lazy route and simply regurgitate SNL and Bill Maher clips as if this makes a case.

I think a lot of Libs are sick of the fact that we've had a retard at the helm for eight years, and they now want someone they can brag about in an intellectual way. And Obama strikes some people as an intellectual. But they put too much stock in Ivy league education. I mean, Bush went to Harvard too, proving any idiot can go to Harvard if he's got the money. And didn't John Gee go to Yale?

Yes, if McCain suddenly dies, she becomes President. I don't see that as such the tragedy and those who think otherwise have not been able to form an argument supporting their fear. The woman has an imporessive record as governor. Yes, governor is not the same as president, but what President in history went into office with previous experience as the executive of another country? Governor is the closest thing you can do to being President, so it isn't like she just came off the street selling lemonade to kids. And from what I understand, there is only about a 30 something percent chance that McCain will die during his first term anyway.