Yes, we can.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

CP....c'mon. You know if Palin said that FDR was President in October of 1929 she would be ridiculed. This isn't about TV - it's about historical knowledge.

What MBC said.

Also - Of course "she would be ridiculed", doesn't mean that I'd do the ridiculing. There have been lots of these gaffes from both sides and focusing on them shows just how much we love petty drama. I can practically hear the Married With Children audience laugh track. "Ooooooooooohhh!"

Disclaimer - I'm sure I focused on gaffes in the past, but I've totally changed my stance on them. I'm done fcuking around with slip-ups and mistakes, pointing them out only when certain people do them, and pretending they don't matter when other people do them. I could list a few moments of McCain and Palin caught in mis-speech that don't bother me to prove my point but that would mean mentioning them, and I won't do it. None of them really bother me any more.

Further disclaimer - "gaffe" means whatever we want it to mean, doesn't it? I'm sure I'll point at something and someone else will say it was just a gaffe, while I disagree. Such is life.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...Palin didn't suggest war with Russia. Gibson did. The last highlighted portion said other things would be tried first...

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold right there!

So Palin is saying that diplomacy and sanctions should be tried first before going to war?! Isn't the Republican position just the opposite? Didn't they, in complete lockstep, ridicule Democrats who suggested the exact same thing in?!

[scaeagles]

Ummm....no.

There is a difference between negotiating with sponsors of terrorism who violate the nuclear non proliferation treaty and with the Russians. It's like when we negotiated with North Korea recently or Saddam after Gulf War I or any other number of negotiations.

Sanctions have never been ridiculed against Iran. In fact, they've been encouraged and pushed for, primarily with Russia standing in the way (largely due to arms sales). Just direct unconditional talks with leaders of terrorist states has been ridiculed.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

...There is a difference between negotiating with sponsors of terrorism who violate the nuclear non proliferation treaty and with the Russians....

Ummm....no. there isn't. Nice try, though.

[scaeagles]

Suppose it's matter of opinion that we'll never agree upon.

At least you must agree that sanctions have been there in dealing with any adversary and promoted by the republicans, right?

[sleepyjeff]

"Unfortunately, only US citizens are eligible to register to vote"

A telling line from the Obama's web site?

Why the word "unfortunately"? Why not "sorry" or simply leave out that part of the sentence all together and just say "Only US Citizens..."?

To me the word "unfortunately" implies that they regret that only US citizens are allowed to vote in a US election......as if maybe they wish every person on Earth(except US military personal, of course) should be allowed to vote in this most historic election

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

A telling line from the Obama's web site?

Why the word "unfortunately"? Why not "sorry" or simply leave out that part of the sentence all together and just say "Only US Citizens..."?

To me the word "unfortunately" implies that they regret that only US citizens are allowed to vote in a US election......as if maybe they wish every person on Earth(except US military personal, of course) should be allowed to vote in this most historic election

Decided the check the McCain site just to make sure I wasn't going to get egg on my face; I am not. On the McCain site they say:

You MUST be a citizen of the United States to register

[Ghoulish Delight]

Good catch, that doesn't sit well. I went through it and I don't think they were trying to push some sort of agenda, I think it was more of a, "Unfortunately you just wasted your time and we're trying to let you down easy." But not a good choice of phrasing considering the context. Those tech-pubs guys sometimes get stuck in their own heads.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Good catch, that doesn't sit well. I went through it and I don't think they were trying to push some sort of agenda, I think it was more of a, "Unfortunately you just wasted your time and we're trying to let you down easy." But not a good choice of phrasing considering the context. Those tech-pubs guys sometimes get stuck in their own heads.

You're probably right....not likely that they are really trying to push an agenda here; at worse it might be a freudian thing on the part of the publisher I suppose.

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

You're probably right....not likely that they are really trying to push an agenda here; at worse it might be a freudian thing on the part of the publisher I suppose.

That's exactly what it strikes me as. Mind you, I don't see this slip as a sign of arrogance. It rather seems like a slip indicating a lack of confidence. ("The rest of the world seems to like Obama, but will our own country? I'm not so sure....")