theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 7, 2009 14:09:19 GMT -5
Oh, come on. I've been to a few different countries and read a few international newspapers, and almost every single country (or region, with the EU) believes that it's importance is far out of proportion to its actual value (the US gets this, too). We're no different. The difference is that, with very few exceptions, people around the world hold the US to a different standard, knowing that the US is the best bet to fix a problem (or make it worse). The US was the driving force that destroyed communism and won World War II. The US economy caused the current recession and the global recession won't end until the US economy recovers. The state of California has the world's 7th-largest economy. Almost every single one of the best universities in the world is located in the United States. At least half of the most-known brands are based in the US. American popular culture dominates around the world. Much less lobbying of the EU, NATO or the UN occurs than does lobbying of the United States. You can know all of the above if you read a paper or the internet, even if you never leave Dubuque, Iowa. Why say these things aloud? Isn't it enough to know them, to feel them? Don't you think there are some things that are better left un-said? Are you fond of people who are richer or better looking or generally better than you making a habit of telling you so? Now you've switched your argument from "ignorant hicks don't know any better" to "we're too arrogant". Meh. Enough Europeans and wanna-be Europeans have lectured me on how much better things are in Paris or Berlin, and I've seen enough groups of Chinese and Japanese tourists who put Ugly American stereotypes to shame. And, in cases when the Germans see fit to lecture the United States on how we should deal with the Russians, it seems warranted to remind them that the Germans don't call the shots.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Jul 7, 2009 15:17:10 GMT -5
I have switched nothing. I happen to think on balance this is in a matter of speaking "the greatest country on earth." But boy am I sick of hearing us say it when the constant repetition does nothing but undermine it's truth. And yes, the people with the least right to say it are the people who've never actually been to France and seen that it also is a great place to live, even if they have a different way of doing things. Whether you think it's coastal elitism or not, I'm going to value the opinion of people who have travelled to a few other countries and seen that there are great things about other countries too over those who've never been abroad, don't want to go abroad and yet are DAMN SURE that this country is the best ever. Ask those people to explain why and you know damn well you will more than likely hear a stupefying morass of half truths and paper-thin platitudes that can't stand up to modest scrutiny under cross examination. I'd prefer the people who have some knowledge of the world (whether from newspapers like yourself as well as myself) or because they are fortunate enough to travel a lot to be the ones making our case, if indeed it needs to be made, which generally speaking it does not. It's not merely the funds to travel that are lacking, in most cases it's the initiative to travel abroad over anything. Too many Americans don't even really know the world outside of the US exists, and that is a national embarrassment. Like I said, a lot of those people going to Disneyland to gorge on expensive crap food and throw it up on crappy rides could well afford to go see ancient lands and learn how not terrible it is to live in say Prague or Sardinia or Osaka.
Is this country the best on earth? On balance I think it is. Are the people in my experience that are most likely to be heard saying those things really in any position to make that considered judgment? Probably not. Regardless, is there value in us constantly telling ourselves and our friends and our enemies how great we are? Certainly not.
Curricula changes enforced largely by teachers unions in American primary and secondary education over the last few decades have shown that there is such a thing as too much self-esteem when it comes at the expense of actual knowledge. Our kids spend too much time think of how great they are instead of earning greatness. Well Americans have shown that there is also such a think too much patriotism when it comes at the expense of actual knowledge about the world around us. I wish we could wear our greatness with some more class. Do the French always do that? No they don't....but aren't we supposedly better than they are?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2009 15:30:43 GMT -5
What does this have to do with Sarah Palin resigning?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jul 7, 2009 15:41:08 GMT -5
What does this have to do with Sarah Palin resigning? EasyEd and the White House Department of Law to the thread-rescue!
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2009 16:50:12 GMT -5
What does this have to do with Sarah Palin resigning? EasyEd and the White House Department of Law to the thread-rescue! Thank you, dailykos. You're aware that there is a Department of Law in Alaska that serves the executive branch, right? That it's a reasonable comparison in light of that fact? The criticisms from the left would bear a lot more weight if many of them weren't as silly as this.
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jul 7, 2009 16:53:37 GMT -5
Getting back to the Thread Topic, I find it very strange that SP is ending her term early as governor. She certainly has her sights on a bigger stage (the Presidency), but doesn't want to come out and say it in case things don't work out. I think this is not going to help her quest to get to that bigger stage.
IMHO, she's got all the characteristics the GOP needs, except for a solid IQ. She is a great spokesperson (the RNC convention!), but when left without a script, she comes up hollow. There are stronger conservatives out there (Keyes, Jindal, Gingrich), but to the detriment of the GOP, folks cannot stay off Palin's trail.
Note: I realize that Obama too leans on the teleprompter, but we've all seen him work off script, and even if you disagree with his views, I don't know any sane people who doubt his intelligence or public speaking abilities.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jul 7, 2009 16:57:17 GMT -5
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jul 7, 2009 17:44:52 GMT -5
EasyEd and the White House Department of Law to the thread-rescue! Thank you, dailykos. You're aware that there is a Department of Law in Alaska that serves the executive branch, right? That it's a reasonable comparison in light of that fact? The criticisms from the left would bear a lot more weight if many of them weren't as silly as this. It doesn't matter if it's ABC News or not except in that it always is "Ha ha, Palin's dumb!" Now last I checked, there's no such language as Austrian and Cinco de Quatro doesn't make any sense either. But those were "misspeaks" for the media's "thmarteth prethident ever" and Palin replacing the state office name for the federal office name is just used to fuel her caricature. Listen, I don't think she's a genius but I don't think she's a mouth-breathing retard* either. She seems pretty average intelligence, savvy, and ambitious like a lot of politicians. I don't agree with much of her politics but the "She's dumb" line is getting old. *I can say retard because President Einstein made fun of retards as well. But he did it articulately so that's cool.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jul 7, 2009 18:10:09 GMT -5
This is a woman who ran for Vice President and who completely misstated what the job of the Vice President was. You can argue all you want that there's an Alaskan Department of Law, but a basic knowledge of civics tells you that that there isn't a Federal Department of Law that can just throw things out based on merit (and no, the White House counsel doesn't do that either). A VP candidate should know that - I don't care if a Governor knows that or not, but a VP candidate who intends to run for President needs to know that.
My problem with that isn't that she is dumb, my problem is that I don't think she has a great understanding of the executive branch of the federal government - which she is going to run to head in 2012.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2009 18:56:44 GMT -5
Question for the multitudes: Do you think it was wrong for Kathleen Sebelius to "quit" as Governor of Kansas or Janet Napolitano to "quit" as Governor of Arizona, both without finishing what they were elected to do? Now, to take another "shot at lawyers", I expect some to say there is a difference because of...whatever... while ignoring the fact that they quit, just like Sarah Palin. I don't recall long threads about either of them quitting nor recall seeing four articles in the Washington Post on the same day about either of them.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2009 19:03:55 GMT -5
Second question for the multitudes: For those who question Sarah Palin's readiness to assume the role of Vice President, if you voted for the Obama team, what evidence exists that Joe Biden has demonstrated his readiness to perform the role of Vice President? I cite the most recent example of his saying, in effect, that Israel had the green light from the U.S. to take out Iran's nuclear capability only to be contradicted the next day by President Obama. To me, that's a major, major gaffe.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 7, 2009 19:06:36 GMT -5
Question for the multitudes: Do you think it was wrong for Kathleen Sebelius to "quit" as Governor of Kansas or Janet Napolitano to "quit" as Governor of Arizona, both without finishing what they were elected to do? Now, to take another "shot at lawyers", I expect some to say there is a difference because of...whatever... while ignoring the fact that they quit, just like Sarah Palin. I don't recall long threads about either of them quitting nor recall seeing four articles in the Washington Post on the same day about either of them. Huge difference, Ed. Napolitano and Sebelius were asked by POTUS to serve their country in a different role. When the President calls, you don't say no. No one begrudges them just as no one begrudged Tom Ridge or any other Republican governor who left their post to take on a role serving the Bush presidency. It's unfair to yadda yadda over the reason why the other individuals left their position.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 7, 2009 19:21:59 GMT -5
Whoa, right there. Keyes? Alan Keyes? I don't think he's a stronger candidate than Palin, but in case this needs to be said, here's one of my occasional gifts to conservatives: do not nominate Alan Keyes for anything ever again.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 8, 2009 5:52:18 GMT -5
Agreed. Last time Republicans nominated Keyes for something, we got Barack Obama in National Office. And look how that's turned out. Whoa, right there. Keyes? Alan Keyes? I don't think he's a stronger candidate than Palin, but in case this needs to be said, here's one of my occasional gifts to conservatives: do not nominate Alan Keyes for anything ever again.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 8, 2009 8:15:19 GMT -5
Agreed. Last time Republicans nominated Keyes for something, we got Barack Obama in National Office. And look how that's turned out. Stupid Jack Ryan. I blame him for all of this.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 8, 2009 8:55:06 GMT -5
This is a woman who ran for Vice President and who completely misstated what the job of the Vice President was. You can argue all you want that there's an Alaskan Department of Law, but a basic knowledge of civics tells you that that there isn't a Federal Department of Law that can just throw things out based on merit (and no, the White House counsel doesn't do that either). A VP candidate should know that - I don't care if a Governor knows that or not, but a VP candidate who intends to run for President needs to know that. My problem with that isn't that she is dumb, my problem is that I don't think she has a great understanding of the executive branch of the federal government - which she is going to run to head in 2012. This is probably why she resigned. Unlike D.C., where most apartments include representatives from almost every single executive branch, states have much less involvement with government agencies. Justice has very little obvious impact on most Americans' lives - I'd guess a fair number of people would think that the FBI does what Justice does. And, if you're running the state and deal with the Department of Laws, I wouldn't be surprised if you mix the terms up. Oh, and if you're going to stab her on this, remember that Obama, when visiting 5 Guys, found out about an intelligence agency while talking to one of the workers. Not good.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 8, 2009 13:03:17 GMT -5
Question for the multitudes: Do you think it was wrong for Kathleen Sebelius to "quit" as Governor of Kansas or Janet Napolitano to "quit" as Governor of Arizona, both without finishing what they were elected to do? Now, to take another "shot at lawyers", I expect some to say there is a difference because of...whatever... while ignoring the fact that they quit, just like Sarah Palin. I don't recall long threads about either of them quitting nor recall seeing four articles in the Washington Post on the same day about either of them. Huge difference, Ed. Napolitano and Sebelius were asked by POTUS to serve their country in a different role. When the President calls, you don't say no. No one begrudges them just as no one begrudged Tom Ridge or any other Republican governor who left their post to take on a role serving the Bush presidency. It's unfair to yadda yadda over the reason why the other individuals left their position. Tables, that's the "whatever" I expected. The reason does not matter as much as the fact they both "quit" their positions of governor of their states, just like Sarah Palin. The were elected by the citizens of their states for four-year terms but they chose to bail out halfway through their second terms. Both states are now being led by persons the citizens did not elect as governors because the elected ones "quit".
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,603
|
Post by hoyatables on Jul 8, 2009 15:29:03 GMT -5
Huge difference, Ed. Napolitano and Sebelius were asked by POTUS to serve their country in a different role. When the President calls, you don't say no. No one begrudges them just as no one begrudged Tom Ridge or any other Republican governor who left their post to take on a role serving the Bush presidency. It's unfair to yadda yadda over the reason why the other individuals left their position. Tables, that's the "whatever" I expected. The reason does not matter as much as the fact they both "quit" their positions of governor of their states, just like Sarah Palin. The were elected by the citizens of their states for four-year terms but they chose to bail out halfway through their second terms. Both states are now being led by persons the citizens did not elect as governors because the elected ones "quit". But Ed, I don't think it is "bailing out" when the President asks you to serve. You're still in public service, and it's not like they tried to cash out or took a high-paying job when they left. For the same reason, I don't think it is fair to penalize Palin for the time that she devoted to campaigning when she was running for VP. McCain asked her to serve, and she expected. When the leader of your party asks you to serve, you say yes. That said, I don't have an issue with Palin's decision to resign, even if it is not for the same reasons. I think that she has at least 2 or 3 good reasons for doing so, though I also thought her press conference did an absolutely horrible job of explaining those reasons. I will also note, however, that both Sebelius and Napolitano had already served a full term as governor and were part-way through their second term when they resigned. I just don't get your point, Ed -- I really don't. I
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jul 8, 2009 15:30:41 GMT -5
Huge difference, Ed. Napolitano and Sebelius were asked by POTUS to serve their country in a different role. When the President calls, you don't say no. No one begrudges them just as no one begrudged Tom Ridge or any other Republican governor who left their post to take on a role serving the Bush presidency. It's unfair to yadda yadda over the reason why the other individuals left their position. Tables, that's the "whatever" I expected. The reason does not matter as much as the fact they both "quit" their positions of governor of their states, just like Sarah Palin. The were elected by the citizens of their states for four-year terms but they chose to bail out halfway through their second terms. Both states are now being led by persons the citizens did not elect as governors because the elected ones "quit". It should be noted that the Dems decried as quitters in the above are serving their country, including in sensitive national security positions. The so-called service of Sarah Palin is a stretch, unless "service" is imagined as that which improves one's own standing. Taking her at her word that her reason for resigning was the costs associated with defending against ethics complaints, let's explore her life-decisions and possible alternatives that could have helped her to avoid this purported financial ruin: 1. This was not something forced on her by ethics complaints. Her local guy - Thomas Van Flein - who has taken to the national media circuit and to issue frivolous threats of litigation, presumably is racking up fees on his time for this nonsense as well as expenses.* It should be noted that Mr. Van Flein is an equity member of his firm and has reasonably good credentials. How much of the $500,000 could have been racked up simply on what appears to be this issuing threats as sport approach to her media outreach as opposed to the three ethics complaints that were pending at the time of Palin's resignation. 2. Governor Palin has also retained Bob Barnett of Williams & Connolly in Washington, DC. It might be a worthwhile exercise to read his bio: www.wc.com/attorney-RobertBarnett.html. He is a partner at a major DC firm, likely billing at $800-$1000 per hour for his time. He represents folks on book deals, transitions to the private sector, and the like. The list of his clients and activities is truly startling to almost overshadow his time as a Supreme Court Clerk. (How would you like the dubious distinction of having to impersonate Former Vice President Dick Cheney for debate prep?). How this particular engagement would pertain to the ethics complaints is beyond imagination, especially since Mr. Barnett is not barred in Alaska and does not appear to have any relevant experience. Nonetheless, he and his colleagues are probably helping out the burn rate. 3. Sarah Palin has elected to pursue a book deal, which is presumably why she retained Bob Barnett for those purposes. Nobody forced her to do it, but she should have entered into the process knowing that she would have to shell out some of her own money to presumably get the most lucrative opportunity. 4. For the purpose of the ethics complaints, I submit that Sarah Palin could have obtained cheaper representation than Mr. Van Flein, again a named/equity member of his firm. Also, why not have Van Flein do the book deal if cost is an issue? I guarantee he is cheaper than Mr. Barnett, and he is certainly fine-tuning his skills in working with the national media. 5. I have strong doubts that Sarah Palin is $500,000 in debt due to this. It is easier to fathom that she has burned through $500,000 due to the prestigious representation that she has selected. In any event, I submit that Sarah Palin is well-positioned to pay her bills in light of the five properties that she maintains with her husband and business partners. She could have sold some of these investments to offset the alleged hardship but elected not to do so. (Source: tinyurl.com/l4bveg) *One has to wonder how this aggressive, litigious approach squares with Palin's likely disdain for trial lawyers.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 8, 2009 17:31:12 GMT -5
Agreed. Last time Republicans nominated Keyes for something, we got Barack Obama in National Office. And look how that's turned out. Stupid Jack Ryan. I blame him for all of this. Really, it's the divorce papers that cost him, so you should blame Jeri Ryan. But how can you stay mad at Jeri Ryan? I'm thankful that Jack Ryan lost, if only for the fact we were spared thousands of Tom Clancy jokes.
|
|