Dan T. Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 This whole thread is false advertising. 1. Palin clearly understood what Sputnik was. 2. She did not say that Sputnik exclusively caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. She was just making the point that the former Soviet Union's collective spending caused its economy to collapse. 3. She did not say that Sputnik itself was a "WTF moment" from Obama. She said Obama's mentioning of it in the State of the Union address was a "WTF moment." I do question Palin's use of the acronym though. It wasn't very sophisticated. Sarah Palin needs legions of bloggers, conservative commentators, and internet posters who take days to write millions of words to explain what she "really meant" by her garbled, unintelligble response. She's got a long way to go before she takes Reagan's crown as "The Great Commnicator." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 She offered a counter to the analogy...a butchered one I agreeYou don't counter w/o a grasp of the analogy What planet are you on where people only open up their mouths and spout off about something they know about? People offer analogies and counters and opinions and even claim facts when they have no idea what they're talking about all the damn time. Happens all day long, every single day. If you want to claim that viewing the Sputnik moment from the exact opposite viewpoint of what is historically correct is demonstrating an understanding of the term, then that's on you. But don't expect anyone with any brains not to laugh at you over it, especially after you continue to insist that she DID know what it meant.. all the way t trying to claim that humans are so infallible that they don't offer counter points unless they understand a subject... pardon me but again. You could argue just as vigorously that 2+2=9, but in the end you're just as woefully ignorant about that equation as Princess Sarah is about Sputnik. Continually revising the world around her just to make her appear as if she's smart isn't working... and really, it almost appears that even though down in yourself you and pretty much everyone else that follows her knows that she's a ditz, but because she's your ditz, you've got to defend her to the end. The problem is that defending her isn't helping your cause or your country. It's putting ignorance first. It's dumbing down America as badly as any other method we complain about. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 This whole thread is false advertising. 1. Palin clearly understood what Sputnik was. 2. She did not say that Sputnik exclusively caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. She was just making the point that the former Soviet Union's collective spending caused its economy to collapse. 3. She did not say that Sputnik itself was a "WTF moment" from Obama. She said Obama's mentioning of it in the State of the Union address was a "WTF moment." I do question Palin's use of the acronym though. It wasn't very sophisticated. First of all no one is doubting that Sarah Palin misunderstood what Sputnik was...what she didn't understand (which BTW is the point of this entire thread) is what Obama meant by "Sputnik Moment", in other words she didn't realize that was he was saying was that we have a "kick in the arse, get off your butt and get moving" moment. Oh and you're right she didn't say it was "exclusively" the fault of Sputnik but she sure indicated that it was a major cause. In the end Sarah failed on a number of counts 1) failure to understand a perfectly legitimate analogy. 2) failure to understand what really led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. 3) failure to butter up a Faux News host. 4) failure to understand what will really turn our nation around economically. I guess if everyone opened up a Spudnut's our country would soar economically. Sarah failed, accept it, get over it, or feel free to defend her all the more...Lord knows she needs the help because apparently she's not getting it from her staff. edit: Oh...yeah and what Bang said. ^^ :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The other thing that would help is if she knew Spudnut was a chain at one time not some mom and pop store with one location Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The other thing that would help is if she knew Spudnut was a chain at one time not some mom and pop store with one location Seriously though, that's the last thing that would have helped that train wreck of an interview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 First of all no one is doubting that Sarah Palin misunderstood what Sputnik was...what she didn't understand (which BTW is the point of this entire thread) is what Obama meant by "Sputnik Moment", in other words she didn't realize that was he was saying was that we have a "kick in the arse, get off your butt and get moving" moment. Oh and you're right she didn't say it was "exclusively" the fault of Sputnik but she sure indicated that it was a major cause. Actually, what I like best about her statement was when she referred to "the former communist USSR". I also admire the way she says that is was all that deficit spending on Sputnik that made the SU collapse (50 years later). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The other thing that would help is if she knew Spudnut was a chain at one time not some mom and pop store with one location Holy cow. The final fail nail in the coffin of that response by Sarah. "In 1946 the company began establishing a nationwide chain of franchised Spudnut Shops. By 1948, over 200 Spudnut Shops had sprung up across the country. Spudnuts were advertised widely, with the slogan "Coast to coast...Alaska to Mexico". The cartoon character "Mr. Spudnut" frequently appeared in ads, restaurants, and even in paradesBy mid-1949, the number was over 225, in 31 states.By 1954, the count was up to more than 300 shops in 38 states." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spudnut_Shops The Spudnut website lists more than 50 locations nationwide. http://spudnutshop.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 ASF do you think O's prescription will really turn our nation around economically? She spent nearly the whole interview refuting that prescription.(as requested) Bang you can laugh all you want,I don't mind a bit,humor will be helpful to ease the coming pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boss_Hogg Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Spudnut Shop Endorses Palin http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/01/sarah-palin-spudnut-obama-/1 Val Driver, owner of The Spudnut Shop in Richland, Wash., told USA TODAY that Palin is "right on" when she talks about the need to cut taxes and federal spending."We've got to make cuts ... government is too big," Driver said in a telephone interview. Driver said Palin's grandfather was friends with her family and he would sit in the shop's "amen corner" six days a week with some of the local businessmen. Palin's mother, Sally, was raised in the area and Palin would visit her grandparents when she attended college in Idaho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 ASF do you think O's prescription will really turn our nation around economically?She spent nearly the whole interview refuting that prescription.(as requested) Yes, in general she disagreed with Obama. But in this specific case she messed up. It would be like Shanahan saying we need a 'Lawrence Taylor moment' to inspire the Redskins to build up their offensive line and re-work their scheme, and Palin responding that we don't need any more high-profile linebackers because it will hurt us against the salary cap. She may actually be correct that we don't need linebackers. She also may be right that we don't have the cap space. But she still completely missed the point of the analogy ... one that all Redskin fans could easily comprehend. And if she were a supposed Redskin expert it would be a huge gaffe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 She may actually be correct that we don't need linebackers. She also may be right that we don't have the cap space. But she still completely missed the point of the analogy ... one that all Redskin fans could easily comprehend. And if she were a supposed Redskin expert it would be a huge gaffe. I know it might be a hard concept but the interview was not about the analogy,but rather solutions VAN SUSTEREN: I'm very well, but there are a lot of Americans aren't. They need jobs. What are we going to do about jobs? Do you have an idea that's any way different from what the president said last night because we're looking for all options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I know it might be a hard concept but the interview was not about the analogy,but rather solutionsVAN SUSTEREN: I'm very well, but there are a lot of Americans aren't. They need jobs. What are we going to do about jobs? Do you have an idea that's any way different from what the president said last night because we're looking for all options? There is no context from that interview which changes the fact that the question was directly about the analogy. Palin could have answered that question in a way which hi-lighted her points while still showing a basic understanding of what the President was talking about at that specific moment, but she didn't. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat Palin's point, or how many times you think her basic argument was a good one. She still whiffed on that question. Hard. But you know what? I really don't care enough about Palin to keep this up. I'm done. Your need to defend her beats my need to point out this mistake. So I hope you are pleased with your champion, because based on how stridently some of you will defend even her most glaring stumbles she isn't going anywhere, any time soon. Just like Koala said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 "Pay no attention to the question! Or the answer! Look, if you take this other part of the interview, she's coherent, there!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 There is no context from that interview which changes the fact that the question was directly about the analogy. Palin could have answered that question in a way which hi-lighted her points while still showing a basic understanding of what the President was talking about at that specific moment, but she didn't.. Perhaps if I repeat the basis of O's analogy then "The world has changed. The competition for jobs is real...This is our generation's Sputnik moment." Or Pauls "Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness and wise consumer choices has never worked -- and it won't work now. "We need to reclaim our American system of limited government... and free enterprise (which) have helped make America the greatest nation on earth." The central dilemma boils down to this: Will America recover its footing best by emulating a little of what its competitors are doing in terms of state-led capitalism and strategic planning? Or would it do better by returning to its founding principles of liberty and limited government, as Mr Ryan and most conservatives suggest, and let the free market work its magic? The commonsensical answer would be a combination of both approaches. But as the heated political rhetoric and bitter election of the past year have shown, there is little chance the two sides can reconcile their fundamental differences any time soon. http://business-video.tmcnet.com/news/2011/01/28/5273595.htm Some can't see the forest for the trees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 ASF do you think O's prescription will really turn our nation around economically? Gee I don't know did it work in our past....oh why yes it did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Perhaps if I repeat the basis of O's analogy then"The world has changed. The competition for jobs is real...This is our generation's Sputnik moment." Or Pauls "Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness and wise consumer choices has never worked -- and it won't work now. "We need to reclaim our American system of limited government... and free enterprise (which) have helped make America the greatest nation on earth." The central dilemma boils down to this: Will America recover its footing best by emulating a little of what its competitors are doing in terms of state-led capitalism and strategic planning? Or would it do better by returning to its founding principles of liberty and limited government, as Mr Ryan and most conservatives suggest, and let the free market work its magic? The commonsensical answer would be a combination of both approaches. But as the heated political rhetoric and bitter election of the past year have shown, there is little chance the two sides can reconcile their fundamental differences any time soon. http://business-video.tmcnet.com/news/2011/01/28/5273595.htm Some can't see the forest for the trees Why is it when you deregulate things ie energy or the banking and investment system things go badly? It seems to me when you push for a system that allows for economic darwinsim invites the same eventuality you see going on in the Arab world now, people who have very little and nothing to lose (hopes dreams goals) get pissed off and want big changes. Allowing regulation and investing in people and a level playing field gives people hope and the best chance The NFL is an example of this all teams have the same money in terms of cap space and those who do the worst get a leg up in picking the best available player the systems still allows for the indivual to succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Why is it when you deregulate things ie energy or the banking and investment system things go badly?. Neither are deregulated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Neither are deregulated And even with that regulation look how things have gone, are you going to suggest that without these regulations that businesses are going to suddenly be on their best behavior, even though with the regulations they obviously are not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Neither are deregulated Enron and energy price spikes in Cali product of deregulation The repeal of Glass Seagull was one key in the financial crash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Neither are deregulated Ah, the old "that would have worked if you'd only done it more" claim. All examples of deregulation leading to greed-inflated bubbles bursting everywhere must be ignored, because none of them has ever been attempted in a universe completely exempt from all laws. And I'm certain that communism will create an economic utopia. The only reason it's failed is because the people who tried it weren't pure enough communists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 368 posts in, and the whole thing still is best summed up by Greta Van Susterin's facial expression while she listened to that "answer." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 We've beaten this to death. What say we go to Spudnuts for donuts and coffee? My treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Enron and energy price spikes in Cali product of deregulationThe repeal of Glass Seagull was one key in the financial crash Both were a part of regulating correct? Both were a result of govt direction.....which brings us back to the Sputnick moment direction of govt deciding. added Larry aren't communist countrys direction and policy decided by the govt? Dr Smith ...The true cause of Enron and the price hikes for cali were in fact govt regulation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes, twa, I get the sound bite. All evils are caused by government because no evil has ever occurred in a universe completely without government. I can see why you're such a defender of Sarah. Not real big on actually comprehending facts, but great at spouting Republican mythology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No...is govt making the right choice in regulating is the real question You might note I'm a fan of govt Obama used this to choose a direction....I do not agree with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.