A) That supposed statement comes from an unknown and unverifiable source. Therefore it is at best hearsay and unreliable.
(Remember the rules of evidence I linked to? BTW, you never did answer which specific rule for evaluating evidence the information straight from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America violated.)
B) This claim is so ridiculously over the top that it's unlikely that she did get it confused.
Then again, given your willingness to swallow any wisp of a vapor which might make a conservative look bad all while ignoring the Mack truck bearing down on you, even when you're looking right at it, I'm not surprised that you swallowed the media's bashing. Your ignorance and misinformation doesn't even surprise me anymore.
Gee, if confusing country and continent and members of a trade organization indicates a lack of mental fitness for office, what does referring to the 57 states of the US constitute?
And if you follow the links from Jeremy's link (thanks Jeremy!), you find this article.
While still somewhat he said/she said, the person who was directly involved in the conversation, able to recount the conversation in detail, and going on the record as a named source (Steve Biegun, the guy who was directly briefing Palin on foreign issues), is far more credible than some unnamed source waving vague accusations around.
BTW Mark, here are a few more rules for evaluating evidence, specifically eyewitness accounts:
- A named source
- A first person account (the speaker was there and involved in the activity)
- A detailed description of events
- Willingness of the witness to be publicly cross examined
Aww, who am I kidding? We've been telling Marky about logical fallacies for years and he still uses them regularly. Why should I expect him to understand how to evaluate testimony?
But guys, guys, guys! Markadelphia is the thoughtful one capable of truly learning history through rigorous scientific process, carefully evaluating all sources of information! Not the person who uncritically accepts whatever unverified, kneejerk piece of information that confirms his internal biases!
It amazes me that no one in this campaign addressed the issue of *integrity*.
Mark has made much of how stupid Sarah Palin supposedly is because of some answers she gave, or *supposedly* gave. Of course, when you're talking about Markadelphia and Republican Derangement Syndrome, actual *evidence* is not necessary, the accusation is enough, and the fact that those he supported made just as many dumbass statements (that can be DOCUMENTED) somehow doesn't matter. But still....
Yes, you can make the argument that Obama is smarter than McCain. You can make the argument that Biden is smarter than Palin. There's plenty of ammo for your argument, no matter which side you are on, the debate could be kept going for YEARS.
And it's all a sidetrack. None of it matters.
Do you want the ruler who is working in your interests to be intelligent? Certainly. Is a more intelligent, better educated person working in your interests to be preferred to a less intelligent, less educated one? Certainly.
But there is an assumption buried in there, that the aforesaid ruler will, in fact, be working FOR your interests.
Is a more intelligent, better educated person working AGAINST your interests to be preferred to a less intelligent, less educated one?
Absolutely not.
So how do you tell? One of the main telltales is integrity. Simply put, how much disparity is there between what they claim they've done, what they claim they will try to do, and what they have ACTUALLY done or tried to do? That is the measure of how much you can believe what they tell you. Having a more highly skilled propagandist flatly lying to me is NOT an advantage.
We paranoid and insane right-wingers disliked John McCain because his words concerning the economy, campaign finance and immigration tended to "throw a bullshit flag", but we were willing to hold our noses and vote for him because the other choices were worse. We loved Sarah Palin (and still do) because, regardless of political savvy and experience or lack thereof, she had INTEGRITY. She said she was for ______________, and her history, voting record and lifestyle AGREED WITH IT. She said she was against ____________, and her history, voting record and lifestyle AGREED WITH IT.
Integrity. I understand why the Left seems to have trouble dealing with the concept. Looking at their leaders, they wouldn't get any practice.
As an example, President-Elect Hussein:
Economy: Until the advent of Joe the Plumber, BULLSHIT FLAG.
National Security: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Foreign Policy: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Positive and negative campaigning: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Campaign financing: MAJOR BULLSHIT FLAG.
Race relations: MAJOR BULLSHIT FLAG.
Rule of Law: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Energy independence: BULLSHIT FLAG.
"Judgment": MAJOR BULLSHIT FLAG.
Religion: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Abortion: BULLSHIT FLAG.
1st Amendment: BULLSHIT FLAG.
2nd Amendment: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Immigration: BULLSHIT FLAG.
You can go through the list of the Democratic Party leadership and it doesn't get any better. To be fair, in the last several years the Republican Party leadership seems to have been competing with the Democrats for who can collect the most bullshit flags. But there is the crucial difference: Those on the conservative side who collect bullshit flags become a drag on their party, become known as the reason the party is exiled to the wilderness, and end up having grassroots campaigns run against them by THEIR OWN SIDE. Those on the liberal side, by contrast, become the VITAL leaders that we dare not lose the leadership qualities of.
"You may be right, though, they have been unreliable in the past"
You certainly can't believe everything that comes from their studios. After all, they put Alan Colmes on the air. ;-)
I saw that clip before. And what I noticed the first time I saw it was still true this time when I was explicitly looking for the answer: Where did FOX get these claims?
Unknown and unverifiable, exactly as I said the first time.
You're still hung up on that Appeal to Authority fallacy, aren't you?
I feel a tremendous amount of pity for Alan Colmes. It must have gone something like this...imagine a group of Fox execs sitting around...
"Hey, let's get a weird alien looking dude to be the weeny liberal that will look like a D-Bag next to Hannity who looks like a an all American quarterback."
"Cool. Let's make sure he is someone who can't debate his way out of a paper bag."
"Awesome."
What? No comments about the central point that the claims came from an unknown and onverifiable source? Why am I not surprised? Do you concede the point that Fox used an anonymous source?
We'll talk more about Colmes after we deal with the primary issue.
Ed, just because Cameron used an anonymous source doesn't mean that the statements made are absolutely not true. Or that he doesn't know exactly who these people are. You know as well as I do that these people want to have jobs with the Republican Party and if they went on record with this stuff, now that Palin is the party and media darling, they would find themselves in an unemployment line.
Sure, it's possible that the sources are lying but unlikely. Karl Cameron, for as much as he has irritated me over the years, is not going to put his reputation on the line for unknown and unverifiable sources. He was on the inside of this thing for a long time and if you choose to believe sources that were much further away than him...well....it just proves my point that you are blinded by belief.
But none of this really matters...all we have to do is let Governor Palin keep talking and we'll get our answer.
I honestly don't give a rat's ass if she was or is pure hell to be around in an advisory capacity.
Ever hear of Don Henley? Or Karen Carpenter? As someone who has spent a major portion of his adult life in the entertainment industry, I could tell you stories of some "whack jobs" that would curl your hair. Paul McCartney and Russell Crowe come to mind.
But notice a common thread in the names I mentioned. You'll have to trust me on whether they are all hellish diva martinets, that have to have EVERYTHING perfectly in line with their own obsessive behaviors. I don't have any written sources, even for the things I know for certain. Those I KNOW, I know because I was there. McCartney and Crowe I can personally attest to, Carpenter and Henley are bywords in the music industry for being obsessive to the point of mania.
What cannot be argued however, is that they were ALL incredibly successful in meeting their chosen goals.
Do I have a problem with Sir Paul deciding that not only will catering for his gig serve no meat, but hands will be fired off the gig if they go to McDonald's for lunch and get a burger instead of eating vegetarian at catering? Well yes, I do. If that bothers me *enough*, I will stop working McCartney gigs. That's where MY choices come into play. But his obsessions and tantrums apparently don't disqualify him from successfully connecting with his audience, nor getting that audience to become an enthusiastic part of something *he chose* for them.
There's a fair body of evidence to suggest that Don Henley turned out such good work *precisely because* he was so anal and obsessive, in short, such a "whack job".
Given all that, hearing Palin described by her "support team" as a diva, whack job or drama queen gets a yawn from me. What it DOES tell me is that there were some alleged members of her team who are too petty or too thin skinned to have any business being in the line of work they are in.
"The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP."
…
"Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is." (Emphasis in original.)
Ed, Sarah Palin is not incredibly smart. In addition to being completely lacking in knowledge of the very basics of the world, she is a political incompetent. A recent quote from Electoral-Vote.com
"In an interview with Fox's Greta Van Susteren, Sarah Palin has said she is open to running for President in 2012 if God shows her the way. This remark demonstrates her inexperience. The protocol for running for President dictates that you do not express any interest in the job before the midterms.
The correct answer (which she didn't give) was: "Greta, now that the election is over I am going back to Alaska and will be entirely focused on being the best possible governor that I can be for the great and wonderful people of Alaska. My term expires in 2010, and with God's help, I will make a decision about my future in 2010." The problem with announcing now is that her opponents (and she has plenty of them) will have ample time to carefully plot their strategy for making her look bad before the primaries even start."
Now, let's take a look at her exact quote, shall we?
"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."
Now, Ed (and all Palin fans here), I want you to try...really hard...to put away the fact that she is a conservative and imagine a Democrat saying this. The never ending pile of shit you would heap on a person who would say these words would betray your hypocrisy.
I find it hilarious that you accuse liberals of always "feeling" and never "thinking" and yet here you are completely unwilling to believe that Sarah Palin is not really all that bright in just about every way. It's all lies and liberal media bullshit, right?
Well, I rest pretty easy knowing that an "idiot" like me can at least has the honesty to shit can morons on his "side."
Ed, apparently you have a problem listening. I stated above.
"Ed, just because Cameron used an anonymous source doesn't mean that the statements made are absolutely not true. Or that he doesn't know exactly who these people are. You know as well as I do that these people want to have jobs with the Republican Party and if they went on record with this stuff, now that Palin is the party and media darling, they would find themselves in an unemployment line.
Sure, it's possible that the sources are lying but unlikely. Karl Cameron, for as much as he has irritated me over the years, is not going to put his reputation on the line for unknown and unverifiable sources. He was on the inside of this thing for a long time and if you choose to believe sources that were much further away than him...well....it just proves my point that you are blinded by belief."
In other words, my rules are the same as Cameron's rules. Ed, you honestly don't know (and don't want to believe) that what he said was true. Neither do I for that matter. He is a reporter who has more inside knowledge than you or I. I'm sorry to burst your bubble (and others here I'm sure) to point out the fact that someone knows more about sources than you do, in this case Cameron.
As I said, these claims may not be true but they likely are, given Sarah Palin's own words in various interviews (see: evil liberal ambusher Katie Couric who (gasp!) dared to ask her...questions)
Your rules for evaluating claims, btw, invalidates many of the claims you have made about President Elect Obama as well, which I find to be amusing.
And now you may continue your personal attacks on me whilst avoiding the reality of Sarah Palin...
Really? How is that possible? He knows who he talked to. You do not. He could ask questions to get more details. You cannot. He would have received more detail than he passed along to you.
In short, you cannot know if the source is reliable, if the source gave an accurate accounting of events, or even if the store was accurately relayed. Oh wait, you already admitted as much:
"He is a reporter who has more inside knowledge than you or I."
The point is simply this: Unless we can evaluate the evidence for ourselves we cannot know for certain if that evidence has been relayed accurately. That is why hearsay evidence is not permitted in court. It is also why those of us who care about accurately determining the truth consider such statements to be less reliable than direct first person statements where the person making the statement is known and can be questioned to test the accuracy of his statement.
"Karl Cameron, for as much as he has irritated me over the years, is not going to put his reputation on the line for unknown and unverifiable sources."
Of course! Journalists are perfect and would never lie or pass along bad information, especially ones who have an established reputation to protect! Maybe you should ask Dan Rather and Franklin Foer (editor of The New Republic) about how it's impossible for news organizations and journalists to spread false information.
In short, by your rules an anonymous source is more reliable than a known source. Is that accurate?
"Your rules for evaluating claims, btw, invalidates many of the claims you have made about President Elect Obama as well, which I find to be amusing."
Really? Which claims? The one where I pointed out that we cannot be certain whether or not Obama is a Muslim?
(More to come, but I have work to do.)
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-ive-been-saying-for-over-five.html (23 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
-Mark Twain
"Instead, they obsess on every real and imagined misstatement by Sarah Palin, who for me has been the most attractive of the four candidates."
So, it's the media's fault that Sarah Palin doesn't know that Africa is a continent and which countries are part of NAFTA?
More bullshit from the supposed anti victim culture.
Mark,
A) That supposed statement comes from an unknown and unverifiable source. Therefore it is at best hearsay and unreliable.
(Remember the rules of evidence I linked to? BTW, you never did answer which specific rule for evaluating evidence the information straight from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America violated.)
B) This claim is so ridiculously over the top that it's unlikely that she did get it confused.
Then again, given your willingness to swallow any wisp of a vapor which might make a conservative look bad all while ignoring the Mack truck bearing down on you, even when you're looking right at it, I'm not surprised that you swallowed the media's bashing. Your ignorance and misinformation doesn't even surprise me anymore.
What we just witnessed was not an election. It was a hostile takeover of the United States through MASSIVE election fraud.
The United States is going the way of Venezuela.
Gee, if confusing country and continent and members of a trade organization indicates a lack of mental fitness for office, what does referring to the 57 states of the US constitute?
Uh, Marky Mark? Peruse this before slinging anymore charges of bullshit.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194857.php
And if you follow the links from Jeremy's link (thanks Jeremy!), you find this article.
While still somewhat he said/she said, the person who was directly involved in the conversation, able to recount the conversation in detail, and going on the record as a named source (Steve Biegun, the guy who was directly briefing Palin on foreign issues), is far more credible than some unnamed source waving vague accusations around.
BTW Mark, here are a few more rules for evaluating evidence, specifically eyewitness accounts:
- A named source
- A first person account (the speaker was there and involved in the activity)
- A detailed description of events
- Willingness of the witness to be publicly cross examined
Aww, who am I kidding? We've been telling Marky about logical fallacies for years and he still uses them regularly. Why should I expect him to understand how to evaluate testimony?
But guys, guys, guys! Markadelphia is the thoughtful one capable of truly learning history through rigorous scientific process, carefully evaluating all sources of information! Not the person who uncritically accepts whatever unverified, kneejerk piece of information that confirms his internal biases!
Inependent, objective journalism is, for the most part, dead and buried in this country.
I'm expecting to move quite a few of these as part of my EBR fund raising efforts.
Good mushrooms today, right Geek?
It amazes me that no one in this campaign addressed the issue of *integrity*.
Mark has made much of how stupid Sarah Palin supposedly is because of some answers she gave, or *supposedly* gave. Of course, when you're talking about Markadelphia and Republican Derangement Syndrome, actual *evidence* is not necessary, the accusation is enough, and the fact that those he supported made just as many dumbass statements (that can be DOCUMENTED) somehow doesn't matter. But still....
Yes, you can make the argument that Obama is smarter than McCain. You can make the argument that Biden is smarter than Palin. There's plenty of ammo for your argument, no matter which side you are on, the debate could be kept going for YEARS.
And it's all a sidetrack. None of it matters.
Do you want the ruler who is working in your interests to be intelligent? Certainly. Is a more intelligent, better educated person working in your interests to be preferred to a less intelligent, less educated one? Certainly.
But there is an assumption buried in there, that the aforesaid ruler will, in fact, be working FOR your interests.
Is a more intelligent, better educated person working AGAINST your interests to be preferred to a less intelligent, less educated one?
Absolutely not.
So how do you tell? One of the main telltales is integrity. Simply put, how much disparity is there between what they claim they've done, what they claim they will try to do, and what they have ACTUALLY done or tried to do? That is the measure of how much you can believe what they tell you. Having a more highly skilled propagandist flatly lying to me is NOT an advantage.
We paranoid and insane right-wingers disliked John McCain because his words concerning the economy, campaign finance and immigration tended to "throw a bullshit flag", but we were willing to hold our noses and vote for him because the other choices were worse. We loved Sarah Palin (and still do) because, regardless of political savvy and experience or lack thereof, she had INTEGRITY. She said she was for ______________, and her history, voting record and lifestyle AGREED WITH IT. She said she was against ____________, and her history, voting record and lifestyle AGREED WITH IT.
Integrity. I understand why the Left seems to have trouble dealing with the concept. Looking at their leaders, they wouldn't get any practice.
As an example, President-Elect Hussein:
Economy: Until the advent of Joe the Plumber, BULLSHIT FLAG.
National Security: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Foreign Policy: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Positive and negative campaigning: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Campaign financing: MAJOR BULLSHIT FLAG.
Race relations: MAJOR BULLSHIT FLAG.
Rule of Law: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Energy independence: BULLSHIT FLAG.
"Judgment": MAJOR BULLSHIT FLAG.
Religion: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Abortion: BULLSHIT FLAG.
1st Amendment: BULLSHIT FLAG.
2nd Amendment: BULLSHIT FLAG.
Immigration: BULLSHIT FLAG.
You can go through the list of the Democratic Party leadership and it doesn't get any better. To be fair, in the last several years the Republican Party leadership seems to have been competing with the Democrats for who can collect the most bullshit flags. But there is the crucial difference: Those on the conservative side who collect bullshit flags become a drag on their party, become known as the reason the party is exiled to the wilderness, and end up having grassroots campaigns run against them by THEIR OWN SIDE. Those on the liberal side, by contrast, become the VITAL leaders that we dare not lose the leadership qualities of.
Ed,
"That supposed statement comes from an unknown and unverifiable source. Therefore it is at best hearsay and unreliable."
Well, I got my info from Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWZHTJsR4Bc
You may be right, though, they have been unreliable in the past:)
"You may be right, though, they have been unreliable in the past"
You certainly can't believe everything that comes from their studios. After all, they put Alan Colmes on the air. ;-)
I saw that clip before. And what I noticed the first time I saw it was still true this time when I was explicitly looking for the answer: Where did FOX get these claims?
Unknown and unverifiable, exactly as I said the first time.
You're still hung up on that Appeal to Authority fallacy, aren't you?
"After all, they put Alan Colmes on the air"
I feel a tremendous amount of pity for Alan Colmes. It must have gone something like this...imagine a group of Fox execs sitting around...
"Hey, let's get a weird alien looking dude to be the weeny liberal that will look like a D-Bag next to Hannity who looks like a an all American quarterback."
"Cool. Let's make sure he is someone who can't debate his way out of a paper bag."
"Awesome."
What? No comments about the central point that the claims came from an unknown and onverifiable source? Why am I not surprised? Do you concede the point that Fox used an anonymous source?
We'll talk more about Colmes after we deal with the primary issue.
Ed, just because Cameron used an anonymous source doesn't mean that the statements made are absolutely not true. Or that he doesn't know exactly who these people are. You know as well as I do that these people want to have jobs with the Republican Party and if they went on record with this stuff, now that Palin is the party and media darling, they would find themselves in an unemployment line.
Sure, it's possible that the sources are lying but unlikely. Karl Cameron, for as much as he has irritated me over the years, is not going to put his reputation on the line for unknown and unverifiable sources. He was on the inside of this thing for a long time and if you choose to believe sources that were much further away than him...well....it just proves my point that you are blinded by belief.
But none of this really matters...all we have to do is let Governor Palin keep talking and we'll get our answer.
I honestly don't give a rat's ass if she was or is pure hell to be around in an advisory capacity.
Ever hear of Don Henley? Or Karen Carpenter? As someone who has spent a major portion of his adult life in the entertainment industry, I could tell you stories of some "whack jobs" that would curl your hair. Paul McCartney and Russell Crowe come to mind.
But notice a common thread in the names I mentioned. You'll have to trust me on whether they are all hellish diva martinets, that have to have EVERYTHING perfectly in line with their own obsessive behaviors. I don't have any written sources, even for the things I know for certain. Those I KNOW, I know because I was there. McCartney and Crowe I can personally attest to, Carpenter and Henley are bywords in the music industry for being obsessive to the point of mania.
What cannot be argued however, is that they were ALL incredibly successful in meeting their chosen goals.
Do I have a problem with Sir Paul deciding that not only will catering for his gig serve no meat, but hands will be fired off the gig if they go to McDonald's for lunch and get a burger instead of eating vegetarian at catering? Well yes, I do. If that bothers me *enough*, I will stop working McCartney gigs. That's where MY choices come into play. But his obsessions and tantrums apparently don't disqualify him from successfully connecting with his audience, nor getting that audience to become an enthusiastic part of something *he chose* for them.
There's a fair body of evidence to suggest that Don Henley turned out such good work *precisely because* he was so anal and obsessive, in short, such a "whack job".
Given all that, hearing Palin described by her "support team" as a diva, whack job or drama queen gets a yawn from me. What it DOES tell me is that there were some alleged members of her team who are too petty or too thin skinned to have any business being in the line of work they are in.
"Sure, it's possible that the sources are lying but unlikely."
Riiiiiight…
And what Rules for Evaluating Evidence do you use? I already showed you the rules we use to evaluate such accounts. In another thread I even demonstrated how applying those rules consistently overcomes partisanship to sometimes give an answer we don't like, but need to stick to if the truth really is important to us.
And because I know you love to dodge pointed questions:
WHAT RULES FOR EVALUATING CLAIMS DID YOU USE TO REACH THIS CONCLUSION?
"all we have to do is let Governor Palin keep talking and we'll get our answer."
We already have an answer. Even her political enemies who have taken time to study her admit that she is incredibly smart.
"The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP."
…
"Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is." (Emphasis in original.)
I guess Markadelphia is hiding and hoping our challenges will just go away.
Marky! Come out, come out where ever you are!
Hey, still here. Just busy with school.
Ed, Sarah Palin is not incredibly smart. In addition to being completely lacking in knowledge of the very basics of the world, she is a political incompetent. A recent quote from Electoral-Vote.com
"In an interview with Fox's Greta Van Susteren, Sarah Palin has said she is open to running for President in 2012 if God shows her the way. This remark demonstrates her inexperience. The protocol for running for President dictates that you do not express any interest in the job before the midterms.
The correct answer (which she didn't give) was: "Greta, now that the election is over I am going back to Alaska and will be entirely focused on being the best possible governor that I can be for the great and wonderful people of Alaska. My term expires in 2010, and with God's help, I will make a decision about my future in 2010." The problem with announcing now is that her opponents (and she has plenty of them) will have ample time to carefully plot their strategy for making her look bad before the primaries even start."
Now, let's take a look at her exact quote, shall we?
"I'm like, OK, God, if there is an open door for me somewhere, this is what I always pray, I'm like, don't let me miss the open door. And if there is an open door in '12 or four years later, and if it is something that is going to be good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me, then I'll plow through that door."
Now, Ed (and all Palin fans here), I want you to try...really hard...to put away the fact that she is a conservative and imagine a Democrat saying this. The never ending pile of shit you would heap on a person who would say these words would betray your hypocrisy.
I find it hilarious that you accuse liberals of always "feeling" and never "thinking" and yet here you are completely unwilling to believe that Sarah Palin is not really all that bright in just about every way. It's all lies and liberal media bullshit, right?
Well, I rest pretty easy knowing that an "idiot" like me can at least has the honesty to shit can morons on his "side."
DJ, which number is "Dodging the point/question" again?
Markadelphia,
I'll repeat the question since you seem to be blind:
WHAT RULES FOR EVALUATING CLAIMS DID YOU USE TO REACH THIS CONCLUSION?
Ed, apparently you have a problem listening. I stated above.
"Ed, just because Cameron used an anonymous source doesn't mean that the statements made are absolutely not true. Or that he doesn't know exactly who these people are. You know as well as I do that these people want to have jobs with the Republican Party and if they went on record with this stuff, now that Palin is the party and media darling, they would find themselves in an unemployment line.
Sure, it's possible that the sources are lying but unlikely. Karl Cameron, for as much as he has irritated me over the years, is not going to put his reputation on the line for unknown and unverifiable sources. He was on the inside of this thing for a long time and if you choose to believe sources that were much further away than him...well....it just proves my point that you are blinded by belief."
In other words, my rules are the same as Cameron's rules. Ed, you honestly don't know (and don't want to believe) that what he said was true. Neither do I for that matter. He is a reporter who has more inside knowledge than you or I. I'm sorry to burst your bubble (and others here I'm sure) to point out the fact that someone knows more about sources than you do, in this case Cameron.
As I said, these claims may not be true but they likely are, given Sarah Palin's own words in various interviews (see: evil liberal ambusher Katie Couric who (gasp!) dared to ask her...questions)
Your rules for evaluating claims, btw, invalidates many of the claims you have made about President Elect Obama as well, which I find to be amusing.
And now you may continue your personal attacks on me whilst avoiding the reality of Sarah Palin...
"my rules are the same as Cameron's rules."
Really? How is that possible? He knows who he talked to. You do not. He could ask questions to get more details. You cannot. He would have received more detail than he passed along to you.
In short, you cannot know if the source is reliable, if the source gave an accurate accounting of events, or even if the store was accurately relayed. Oh wait, you already admitted as much:
"He is a reporter who has more inside knowledge than you or I."
The point is simply this: Unless we can evaluate the evidence for ourselves we cannot know for certain if that evidence has been relayed accurately. That is why hearsay evidence is not permitted in court. It is also why those of us who care about accurately determining the truth consider such statements to be less reliable than direct first person statements where the person making the statement is known and can be questioned to test the accuracy of his statement.
"Karl Cameron, for as much as he has irritated me over the years, is not going to put his reputation on the line for unknown and unverifiable sources."
Of course! Journalists are perfect and would never lie or pass along bad information, especially ones who have an established reputation to protect! Maybe you should ask Dan Rather and Franklin Foer (editor of The New Republic) about how it's impossible for news organizations and journalists to spread false information.
In short, by your rules an anonymous source is more reliable than a known source. Is that accurate?
"Your rules for evaluating claims, btw, invalidates many of the claims you have made about President Elect Obama as well, which I find to be amusing."
Really? Which claims? The one where I pointed out that we cannot be certain whether or not Obama is a Muslim?
(More to come, but I have work to do.)
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>