Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
As I recall, your contention, generally, was that Obama has brought a
sense of
hope/change/something to much of the world. My contention was, and is,
that
much of the world doesn't know (anything of substance) or care about
Obama.

and this article proves what, exactly?? Just for starters, the official
Chinese position was and is somewhat leery of Obama, as they found the
Bush approach much more predictable. Several of their officials expressed
such a view during the campaign, and numerous experts on China have been
all over the airwaves since, explaining the Chinese viewpoint. Now, given
that, and that Chinese public perception is greatly shaped by a
government-controlled media, these links you cited are about as germane to
your debate with Jeff as an interview with my dog.
Tom

Just out of curiosity... would you be able to glean any geopolitical
insights from an interview with your hound?

If the answer is "yes,"
then you have done considerably better than Jeff has done, in his
discussions with Rah Dean.

If the answer is "no,"
then you have done no worse than Jeff has done, in his discussions with Rah
Dean!

Op

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:09:34 -0500, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
As I recall, your contention, generally, was that Obama has brought a
sense of
hope/change/something to much of the world. My contention was, and is,
that
much of the world doesn't know (anything of substance) or care about
Obama.

and this article proves what, exactly??

Proves? Little or nothing. As I said - what, twice - I saw it, it was part
humorous and part mildly informative and informational, nothing more. I did not
and do not hold it out as the official position of every person in China. OTOH,
it does give a glimpse into what both "average" people in China as well as what
fairly high-level academics - here's a link from a quick Googling of Dingli:
http://www.china.usc.edu/ShowArticle...articleID=1401. Is he a shill for Beijing? I
have no idea. But from a cursory glance, he seems as legit as many "Western"
academics insofar as not particularly being a "Government" mouthpiece. But hey,
again, I'm not offering him up as some sole source for the entire Chinese
population's real and true feelings. I only posted it as part of a "here is
what one article said" kinda thing.

Just for starters, the official
Chinese position was and is somewhat leery of Obama, as they found the Bush
approach much more predictable. Several of their officials expressed such a
view during the campaign, and numerous experts on China have been all over
the airwaves since, explaining the Chinese viewpoint. Now, given that, and
that Chinese public perception is greatly shaped by a government-controlled
media, these links you cited are about as germane to your debate with Jeff
as an interview with my dog.

Um, well, I can't help it if you don't think jeff is any better a debater than
your dog is an interview. OTOH, I'll not ask what your dog might know that
would make him subject to interview...I mean, he might know the family bean
recipe or something...

IAC, since I'm not really trying to debate "the perception of Obama's in China"
with jeff using the article as my sole criterion, the effect of the influence of
the Chinese government upon, and its possible intervention in, Dingli's
statement is not dispositive of my premise that the bulk of the world's
population has no substantive opinion on or knowledge of Obama and that they
have no interest, self- or otherwise, in changing the status quo. And the whole
idea that "Americans" think that _any_ of the people into which they get
con...er, hype... er, "hoped" into voting into office is of great import to the
world's population is a pretty good indicator of what I meant by
"Americentic(ism)."

Moreover, your premise that the Chinese government would be "somewhat leery" of
Obama doesn't speak well of the premise that Obama confers upon the US and its
people some beloved, hopeful feeling from the rest of the world. I mean, I
realize China isnt Equatorial Guinea and all, but still, you'd think that a guy
who supposedly inspires such world-wide kumbayaing wouldn't make the government
of China, even as insignificant as China is in relation to the US,
"leery"...maybe if he whipped out his Peace Prize and explained that 5
Norwegians thought he was "Da Bomb" (or not...as the limited Norwegian case may
be...) it would help...

HTH,
R
....thankfully, according to Baidu, the US has an inside track via familial ties
with Equatorial Guinea....
Tom

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:35:45 -0500, jeff wrote:

wrote:

so, i reckon it means what it says...obama is a popular subject of
searches by the chinese on baidu, according to the source you cited. the
numbers probably trump your shopgirl statistic with regard to
recognition in china.

OK. How do you know "obama is a popular subject of searches by the chinese on
baidu?" What does being number 22 on a particular day mean? How many distinct
people searched, and for what purpose? Were they even in China? What terms
were 1-21? Maybe Axelrod kept trying to see how his shtick was playing in
Beijing. Maybe a whole bunch of reporters (or wannabe reporters) were trying to
see what Baidu would throw up. Maybe a bunch of shopgirls think he's SOOOOO
dreamy. And do you have any idea of what Baidu charges to, um, skew the numbers
(and they do heavily use "pay to play" - in fact, they've been criticized for
that very thing)? Basically, are you just impressed that "he's number 22 on X
date on Baidu?," or, do you have some knowledge of what it means so that you can
make a case for why his being number 22 on X date means something that would
bolster your case.

it was your cited source...not mine. my interpretation of its meaning
is as reliable, if not more reliable, than yours...imo.

The main hit when one searches for "Obama" on Baidu? A local page that informs
the searcher that his name is common in many parts of the world, his father's
tribe in Kenya and what dialect they speak, and lists 4 facts about him - his
father, wife, daughters, and the last of the 4 facts? He has a dog named "bo."
The second hit in the list is BarackObama.com and the third is the text of his
"Victory speech." OTOH, search baidu for "Brad Pitt" and the first hit is the
same type of local baidu page as Obama's. However, you get more than a
reasonable person should care about him - his height, his weight,where he was
born, in what every educational institution "the world's sexiest man" ever set
foot, the history of his "love life," (which links to a similar screed on Jolie,
Aniston, etc.), a rundown of his movies, what he had for lunch each day, where
he shops, what he drives. Where did Obama go to school? Um, well, the baidu
listing is no help. What did he do before 2008? Not a single hint - no law
school, no Senate, nada. OTOH, apparently, the one remaining tidbit baidu found
crucial about (POTUS) Obama is that some pol in Equatorial Guinea is somehow
related by name or something...

Here they a

http://baike.baidu.com/view/1518279.htm?fr=ala0 (Obama)

http://baike.baidu.com/view/491940.htm?fr=ala0 (Pitt)

Yeah, I know it's in Chinese, but the pages could be in ****in' Klingon and the
content amount difference is still obvious.

And as aside - I'd offer that the aforementioned "skewing" by someone(s) is
possible - there are a number of hits in the top ranks for practically (and
thankfully) unknown US loonakook Alex Jones. While anything is possible, I
_seriously_ doubt many Chinese people are interested in obscure US loons raving
about US politics, but hey, ??? I guess if they are, they could always email Da
Sarge...

ok...so? i was simply working from your initial premise in citing the
article...which i thought misplaced. i didn't vouch for anything in the
article...nor would i use it to support your position or mine about
obama's recognition.


in fact, your source suggests obama is well-known
as far as being "recognizable" in china. i've not been to china.
whatever personal knowledge i have is based on my limited reading. of
course, i have no idea what prompted any individual search on baidu...


why you think the article, and the bland statements of two giggling
"shop girls" proves your point is a mystery to me...perhaps you can
explain its merit for your contention?
Perhaps you missed these items...maybe your tingling leg distracted you:
nah, alas, i read the whole thing. the reference to my leg was intended
to refer to a possibility you were "pulling my leg" with such a
ridiculous suggestion that the article had any real meaning in our prior
disagreement about who was more recognizable around the world.
"'He's special for the Americans, but definitely not for the Chinese,' said Shen
Dingli, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in
Shanghai. 'On the contrary, we are always influenced by the tone of
government-monitored media.'"
frankly...i don't recall contending the chinese thought obama was
"special". i read this as saying the perception of obama in china is
shaped by the government media, not that he is unknown.

As I recall, your contention, generally, was that Obama has brought a sense of
hope/change/something to much of the world.

that's correct (except, "something" is a bit too vague and i don't
recall saying that, but it's consistent with how i speak sometimes g)...

i do contend obama is recognized in much of the world...more so than any
of the other 2009 nobel winners...and that such recognition is based
largely on concepts or perceptions of his uniqueness as our first black
president, and the "hope" and "change" with regard to the U.S. politics,
policy, and foreign relations. there are a range of characteristics that
might qualify him as special to many...including me...in the context of
his presidency and otherwise.

your citation didn't disprove it, nor support your argument imo.

My contention was, and is, that
much of the world doesn't know (anything of substance) or care about Obama. I'd
agree that if you asked everyone on the planet if they had heard the name
"Obama," a large number would say "yes." The same is true of many names and I
suspect that many entertainment figures would score much higher, as would both
"famous" and "infamous" "leaders." But insofar as the world's population
"knowing" anything about him, caring one way or the other, or having any true
personal feelings, good or bad, about him, the number would shrink by several
orders of magnitude.


OK...so that's your argument. Now, what are the reliable data sources
you will accept as proof that you are right or wrong? The Washington
Post? The NYT? an AP puff piece by Cara Anna (WTF is she?)?

IAC, I don't and didn't offer the story as some all-encompassing final verdict
on Obama in China (or the world), I simply saw something I found both amusing
(the flaming Obama and the Oba Mao shirts - and no, I found it amusing, not a
political statement), moderately informative - a view on the "man on the street"
"background atmosphere," and mildly informational - Shen Dingli's comments. And
no, I don't propose that he speaks for all of China - OTOH, I don't dismiss him
completely, either...granted, it's not like he's a Lecturer for a law class or
two at the U of C or something, but hey, it's almost like Paul Krugman said
something...

entertaining as always...but i've never denied you were competent and
persuasive in that regard. my point was, and is, that your source was
appropriate for pulling my leg, but not as authority for any position
about Obama's recognition or "specialness" in much of the world.

jeff

And once again, I didn't cite it as the be-all-and-all of sources on Obama in re
or inter alia China, either officially or otherwise. Nor did it come from
FoxRushBeckNews or some such. It was a run-of-the-mill (AFAIK) AP wire bit that
spot-blipped a few things in advance of Obama's visit, some amusing, some
moderately germane to a topic recently discussed. I offered it as no more, and
really, I'm about done with it. Apparently, though, Tom's dog might be
interested in an interview, and Baidu has, even at number 1,203,034,022, the
terms "Dobson" or "Grover's dick," the Sarge will be ever so pleased to
discuss...and if, your deity here forbid, someone in China searches the terms
"Coburn vet bill," he'll be on it like a NYT reporter covering hinkey $30.00
contributions to Sarah Palin's chest...CAMPAIGN chest, CAMPAIGN chest...

TC,
R

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

On Nov 15, 8:56*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:35:45 -0500, jeff wrote:
wrote:

so, i reckon it means what it says...obama is a popular subject of
searches by the chinese on baidu, according to the source you cited. the
numbers probably trump your shopgirl statistic with regard to
recognition in china.

OK. *How do you know "obama is a popular subject of searches by the chinese on
baidu?" *What does being number 22 on a particular day mean? *How many distinct
people searched, and for what purpose? *Were they even in China? *What terms
were 1-21? Maybe Axelrod kept trying to see how his shtick was playing in
Beijing. *Maybe a whole bunch of reporters (or wannabe reporters) were trying to
see what Baidu would throw up. *Maybe a bunch of shopgirls think he's SOOOOO
dreamy. *And do you have any idea of what Baidu charges to, um, skew the numbers
(and they do heavily use "pay to play" - in fact, they've been criticized for
that very thing)? *Basically, are you just impressed that "he's number 22 on X
date on Baidu?," or, do you have some knowledge of what it means so that you can
make a case for why his being number 22 on X date means something that would
bolster your case.

it was your cited source...not mine. *my interpretation of its meaning
is as reliable, if not more reliable, than yours...imo.

The main hit when one searches for "Obama" on Baidu? *A local page that informs
the searcher that his name is common in many parts of the world, his father's
tribe in Kenya and what dialect they speak, and lists 4 facts about him - his
father, wife, daughters, and the last of the 4 facts? *He has a dog named "bo."
The second hit in the list is BarackObama.com and the third is the text of his
"Victory speech." *OTOH, search baidu for "Brad Pitt" and the first hit is the
same type of local baidu page as Obama's. *However, you get more than a
reasonable person should care about him - his height, his weight,where he was
born, in what every educational institution "the world's sexiest man" ever set
foot, the history of his "love life," (which links to a similar screed on Jolie,
Aniston, etc.), a rundown of his movies, what he had for lunch each day, where
he shops, what he drives. *Where did Obama go to school? *Um, well, the baidu
listing is no help. *What did he do before 2008? *Not a single hint - no law
school, no Senate, nada. *OTOH, apparently, the one remaining tidbit baidu found
crucial about (POTUS) Obama is that some pol in Equatorial Guinea is somehow
related by name or something...

Here they a

http://baike.baidu.com/view/1518279.htm?fr=ala0(Obama)

http://baike.baidu.com/view/491940.htm?fr=ala0(Pitt)

Yeah, I know it's in Chinese, but the pages could be in ****in' Klingon and the
content amount difference is still obvious.

And as aside - I'd offer that the aforementioned "skewing" by someone(s) is
possible - there are a number of hits in the top ranks for practically (and
thankfully) unknown US loonakook Alex Jones. *While anything is possible, I
_seriously_ doubt many Chinese people are interested in obscure US loons raving
about US politics, but hey, ??? *I guess if they are, they could always email Da
Sarge...

ok...so? *i was simply working from your initial premise in citing the
article...which i thought misplaced. i didn't vouch for anything in the
article...nor would i use it to support your position or mine about
obama's recognition.

in fact, your source suggests obama is well-known
as far as being "recognizable" in china. i've not been to china.
whatever personal knowledge i have is based on my limited reading. of
course, i have no idea what prompted any individual search on baidu....

why you think the article, and the bland statements of two giggling
"shop girls" proves your point is a mystery to me...perhaps you can
explain its merit for your contention?
Perhaps you missed these items...maybe your tingling leg distracted you:
nah, alas, i read the whole thing. the reference to my leg was intended
to refer to a possibility you were "pulling my leg" with such a
ridiculous suggestion that the article had any real meaning in our prior
disagreement about who was more recognizable around the world.
"'He's special for the Americans, but definitely not for the Chinese,' said Shen
Dingli, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in
Shanghai. 'On the contrary, we are always influenced by the tone of
government-monitored media.'" *
frankly...i don't recall contending the chinese thought obama was
"special". i read this as saying the perception of obama in china is
shaped by the government media, not that he is unknown.

As I recall, your contention, generally, was that Obama has brought a sense of
hope/change/something to much of the world.

that's correct (except, "something" is a bit too vague and i don't
recall saying that, but it's consistent with how i speak sometimes g)....

i do contend obama is recognized in much of the world...more so than any
of the other 2009 nobel winners...and that such recognition is based
largely on concepts or perceptions of his uniqueness as our first black
president, and the "hope" and "change" with regard to the U.S. politics,
policy, and foreign relations. there are a range of characteristics that
might qualify him as special to many...including me...in the context of
his presidency and otherwise.

your citation didn't disprove it, nor support your argument imo.

My contention was, and is, that
much of the world doesn't know (anything of substance) or care about Obama. *I'd
agree that if you asked everyone on the planet if they had heard the name
"Obama," a large number would say "yes." *The same is true of many names and I
suspect that many entertainment figures would score much higher, as would both
"famous" and "infamous" "leaders." *But insofar as the world's population
"knowing" anything about him, caring one way or the other, or having any true
personal feelings, good or bad, about him, the number would shrink by several
orders of magnitude.

OK...so that's your argument. *Now, what are the reliable data sources
you will accept as proof that you are right or wrong? *The Washington
Post? The NYT? *an AP puff piece by Cara Anna (WTF is she?)?

IAC, I don't and didn't offer the story as some all-encompassing final verdict
on Obama in China (or the world), I simply saw something I found both amusing
(the flaming Obama and the Oba Mao shirts - and no, I found it amusing, not a
political statement), moderately informative - a view on the "man on the street"
"background atmosphere," and mildly informational - Shen Dingli's comments. *And
no, I don't propose that he speaks for all of China - OTOH, I don't dismiss him
completely, either...granted, it's not like he's a Lecturer for a law class or
two at the U of C or something, but hey, it's almost like Paul Krugman said
something...

entertaining as always...but i've never denied you were competent and
persuasive in that regard. *my point was, and is, that your source was
appropriate for pulling my leg, but not as authority for any position
about Obama's recognition or "specialness" in much of the world.

jeff

And once again, I didn't cite it as the be-all-and-all of sources on Obama in re
or inter alia China, either officially or otherwise. *Nor did it come from
FoxRushBeckNews or some such. *It was a run-of-the-mill (AFAIK) AP wire bit that
spot-blipped a few things in advance of Obama's visit, some amusing, some
moderately germane to a topic recently discussed. *I offered it as no more, and
really, I'm about done with it. *Apparently, though, Tom's dog might be
interested in an interview, and Baidu has, even at number 1,203,034,022, the
terms "Dobson" or "Grover's dick," the Sarge will be ever so pleased to
discuss...and if, your deity here forbid, someone in China searches the terms
"Coburn vet bill," he'll be on it like a NYT reporter covering hinkey $30..00
contributions to Sarah Palin's chest...CAMPAIGN chest, CAMPAIGN chest...

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Moron.

g.

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

On Nov 16, 7:46*am, jeff wrote:
wrote:
...he'll be on it like a NYT reporter covering hinkey $30.00
contributions to Sarah Palin's chest...CAMPAIGN chest, CAMPAIGN chest....

TC,
R

BG... i fully support all investment, inquiry, and disclosure
regarding Palin's chest.... but, um, imo, the same effort needs to be
given to her brain.

she's as scary a prospect as any politician i've witnessed in my
lifetime...including George Wallace, David Duke, and their ilk...and i
fear she'll be the, uh, "figurehead" of the renewed, revived, and
crazier GOP of the future.

jeff

What's particularly interesting is that the crazier they get (and they
don't appear to have peaked yet) the more rabid and irrational the
core of their constituency becomes. All other considerations aside,
the mere fact that Sarah Palin is taken seriously as a leader, actual
or potential, betrays credulity and lunacy of a high order.

giles

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

On Nov 16, 1:04*pm, Giles wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:46*am, jeff wrote:



wrote:
...he'll be on it like a NYT reporter covering hinkey $30.00
contributions to Sarah Palin's chest...CAMPAIGN chest, CAMPAIGN chest....

TC,
R

BG... i fully support all investment, inquiry, and disclosure
regarding Palin's chest.... but, um, imo, the same effort needs to be
given to her brain.

she's as scary a prospect as any politician i've witnessed in my
lifetime...including George Wallace, David Duke, and their ilk...and i
fear she'll be the, uh, "figurehead" of the renewed, revived, and
crazier GOP of the future.

jeff

What's particularly interesting is that the crazier they get (and they
don't appear to have peaked yet) the more rabid and irrational the
core of their constituency becomes. *All other considerations aside,
the mere fact that Sarah Palin is taken seriously as a leader, actual
or potential, betrays credulity and lunacy of a high order.

Rarity of rarity......we (almost completely) agree.

She is not so much a leader as a role model for those whose bent is
already in that direction -- whatever you determine that direction to
be.
As such, she seems to serve the same role on the right as Hillary does
on the left: looney, but empowering to a segment of the constituency
already inclined to move in that direction.

Both are harmless. Neither will ever be a viable candidate.

cheers

oz

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

On Nov 16, 3:51*pm, MajorOz wrote:
On Nov 16, 1:04*pm, Giles wrote:





On Nov 16, 7:46*am, jeff wrote:

wrote:
...he'll be on it like a NYT reporter covering hinkey $30.00
contributions to Sarah Palin's chest...CAMPAIGN chest, CAMPAIGN chest...

TC,
R

BG... i fully support all investment, inquiry, and disclosure
regarding Palin's chest.... but, um, imo, the same effort needs to be
given to her brain.

she's as scary a prospect as any politician i've witnessed in my
lifetime...including George Wallace, David Duke, and their ilk...and i
fear she'll be the, uh, "figurehead" of the renewed, revived, and
crazier GOP of the future.

jeff

What's particularly interesting is that the crazier they get (and they
don't appear to have peaked yet) the more rabid and irrational the
core of their constituency becomes. *All other considerations aside,
the mere fact that Sarah Palin is taken seriously as a leader, actual
or potential, betrays credulity and lunacy of a high order.

Rarity of rarity......we (almost completely) agree.

Probably not, but it's easy to see how the casual reader, ignorant of
history, might think so.

She is not so much a leader as a role model for those whose bent is
already in that direction -- whatever you determine that direction to
be.

What matters is not so much what you, or I, determine that direction
to be.....it is what THEY think it is.....however deluded they might
be as to what it is they think they believe.

As such, she seems to serve the same role on the right as Hillary does
on the left: looney, but empowering to a segment of the constituency
already inclined to move in that direction.

Nope. There's nothing in the least looney about Hillary Clinton
which, to be sure, is not at all necessarily true of her
constitunecy.....or at least a portion thereof. She's just another
hardnosed old school politician, raised in the same tradition as most
of our hardnosed old school politicians....for good or ill. Palin, on
the other hand, was (is?) the governor of ****in' ALASKA?......what
are the odds that they'll beat Puerto Rico or Canada to statehood? I
mean, Jesse Ventura at least had the good sense to pick an American
state to become governor of and even Ronald ****in' Brain-Dead Reagan
came close.

Both are harmless.

See, JUST

Neither will ever be a viable candidate.

cheers

oz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

On Nov 16, 4:15*pm, Giles wrote:
On Nov 16, 3:51*pm, MajorOz wrote:





On Nov 16, 1:04*pm, Giles wrote:

On Nov 16, 7:46*am, jeff wrote:

wrote:
...he'll be on it like a NYT reporter covering hinkey $30.00
contributions to Sarah Palin's chest...CAMPAIGN chest, CAMPAIGN chest...

TC,
R

BG... i fully support all investment, inquiry, and disclosure
regarding Palin's chest.... but, um, imo, the same effort needs to be
given to her brain.

she's as scary a prospect as any politician i've witnessed in my
lifetime...including George Wallace, David Duke, and their ilk...and i
fear she'll be the, uh, "figurehead" of the renewed, revived, and
crazier GOP of the future.

jeff

What's particularly interesting is that the crazier they get (and they
don't appear to have peaked yet) the more rabid and irrational the
core of their constituency becomes. *All other considerations aside,
the mere fact that Sarah Palin is taken seriously as a leader, actual
or potential, betrays credulity and lunacy of a high order.

Rarity of rarity......we (almost completely) agree.

Probably not, but it's easy to see how the casual reader, ignorant of
history, might think so.

She is not so much a leader as a role model for those whose bent is
already in that direction -- whatever you determine that direction to
be.

What matters is not so much what you, or I, determine that direction
to be.....it is what THEY think it is.....however deluded they might
be as to what it is they think they believe.

As such, she seems to serve the same role on the right as Hillary does
on the left: looney, but empowering to a segment of the constituency
already inclined to move in that direction.

Nope. *There's nothing in the least looney about Hillary Clinton
which, to be sure, is not at all necessarily true of her
constitunecy.....or at least a portion thereof. *She's just another
hardnosed old school politician, raised in the same tradition as most
of our hardnosed old school politicians....for good or ill. *Palin, on
the other hand, was (is?) the governor of ****in' ALASKA?......what
are the odds that they'll beat Puerto Rico or Canada to statehood? *I
mean, Jesse Ventura at least had the good sense to pick an American
state to become governor of and even Ronald ****in' Brain-Dead Reagan
came close.

Both are harmless.

See, JUST

Stupid Google Groups! :(

As I was saying, JUST when you look like you're about to make
something like sense, you come up with something like this!

In fact, neither of them is harmless or anything that bears even a
superficial resemblance to harmless.......think George II.

Neither will ever be a viable candidate.

Depends on how you define "viable". Are you perhaps equating "viable"
with "electable"? If so, think "Reagan," and recalculate. If the
result comes up the same, think about a different model.

cheers

Prosit.

oz

g.

Not to be picky, but...(and something for jeff)
 

On Nov 16, 4:21*pm, Giles wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:15*pm, Giles wrote:



On Nov 16, 3:51*pm, MajorOz wrote:

On Nov 16, 1:04*pm, Giles wrote:

On Nov 16, 7:46*am, jeff wrote:

wrote:
...he'll be on it like a NYT reporter covering hinkey $30.00
contributions to Sarah Palin's chest...CAMPAIGN chest, CAMPAIGN chest...

TC,
R

BG... i fully support all investment, inquiry, and disclosure
regarding Palin's chest.... but, um, imo, the same effort needs to be
given to her brain.

she's as scary a prospect as any politician i've witnessed in my
lifetime...including George Wallace, David Duke, and their ilk...and i
fear she'll be the, uh, "figurehead" of the renewed, revived, and
crazier GOP of the future.

jeff

What's particularly interesting is that the crazier they get (and they
don't appear to have peaked yet) the more rabid and irrational the
core of their constituency becomes. *All other considerations aside,
the mere fact that Sarah Palin is taken seriously as a leader, actual
or potential, betrays credulity and lunacy of a high order.

Rarity of rarity......we (almost completely) agree.

Probably not, but it's easy to see how the casual reader, ignorant of
history, might think so.

She is not so much a leader as a role model for those whose bent is
already in that direction -- whatever you determine that direction to
be.

What matters is not so much what you, or I, determine that direction
to be.....it is what THEY think it is.....however deluded they might
be as to what it is they think they believe.

As such, she seems to serve the same role on the right as Hillary does
on the left: looney, but empowering to a segment of the constituency
already inclined to move in that direction.

Nope. *There's nothing in the least looney about Hillary Clinton
which, to be sure, is not at all necessarily true of her
constitunecy.....or at least a portion thereof. *She's just another
hardnosed old school politician, raised in the same tradition as most
of our hardnosed old school politicians....for good or ill. *Palin, on
the other hand, was (is?) the governor of ****in' ALASKA?......what
are the odds that they'll beat Puerto Rico or Canada to statehood? *I
mean, Jesse Ventura at least had the good sense to pick an American
state to become governor of and even Ronald ****in' Brain-Dead Reagan
came close.

Both are harmless.

See, JUST

Stupid Google Groups! * * *:(

As I was saying, JUST when you look like you're about to make
something like sense, you come up with something like this!

In fact, neither of them is harmless or anything that bears even a
superficial resemblance to harmless.......think George II.

Neither will ever be a viable candidate.

Depends on how you define "viable". *Are you perhaps equating "viable"
with "electable"? *If so, think "Reagan," and recalculate. *If the
result comes up the same, think about a different model.

cheers

Prosit.

oz

g.

I knew It was a mistake..................

oz