It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ABC Sarah Palin Interview-- The Unedited Version

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by rahrens
 


Charlie, I have proved the video does not match the FULL transcript. Now it's your turn.
Show me where the edited parts appear elsewhere. ( HINT: You can't.
)


Originally posted by rahrens


GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.


Didn't lie at all, this excerpt from the transcript clearly shows that since you can see Russia from Alaska, she is asserting just that!



Wait, YOU SAID she said "being Governor of a State 53 miles from the Russian Federation automatically gives her diplomatic experience."

She NEVER says that it gave her diplomatic experience. What she says TWICE about being close to Russia is this:




And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.



That is where she first mentions Russia's proximity.

After Palin mentions the proximity of Russia to Alaska in the context of the importance of having good relations with them, Gibson uses the distance notion and asks the question "What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?" So in other words, he frames the question in a way that has nothing to do with what she communicated.


So in response to his inane question, she responds with:




PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.




Again: Bold portions never aired. (Prove otherwise.)



Originally posted by rahrens
In short, YOU made the assertion of editing bias, it is up to YOU to prove it.


I already have.


In short, YOU made the assertion of the edited portions appearing elsewhere, it is up to YOU to prove it.


Here, I'll even give you a little help:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4


Happy hunting!


Oh, and you do realize the motto of this website is to DENY IGNORANCE?





[edit on 17-9-2008 by loam]




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


No, Gibson posed the question about her diplomatic experience, and she is the one that brought up the proximity issue. As to that question, YOU said that her answer was not aired, but you neglect to show what WAS. ??? She repeats this point IN ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION. She didn't have to say the words, she was using that as an answer to his question!

I repeat, this is YOUR thread, you made the allegations, not me. Prove your assertions. You refuse because you can't.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by rahrens
reply to post by loam
 


No, Gibson posed the question about her diplomatic experience, and she is the one that brought up the proximity issue. As to that question, YOU said that her answer was not aired, but you neglect to show what WAS. ??? She repeats this point IN ANSWER TO HIS QUESTION. She didn't have to say the words, she was using that as an answer to his question!

I repeat, this is YOUR thread, you made the allegations, not me. Prove your assertions. You refuse because you can't.

Then her answer should stand as it is and the viewers can decide if it is appropriate. It is not the place of the editors or Gibson to decide how to cut the answers.

When I first watched the interview, the cutting her off at the end of questions was quite distracting, and it seemed as if she often could not finish her thoughts. This gave the perception that Gibson was over powering and she was intimidated.

The editing is a lie of omission. It would be like showing
"I don't support John McCain"
vs.
"I don't support John McCain in his policy of not drilling in ANWR, and I hope that over time he will come to see the wisdom in securing domestic supply."

The omission COMPLETELY changes the message. And cutting her off as frequently as the interview did gave a different impression to the viewers than her actual answers would. Yes, this may be business as usual with many in the media, but with this sensitive issue of media bias, they should have been more careful. People are getting tired of these domestic psyops and it cannot even be hidden anymore (with the advent of the Internet).



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ScienceDada
 


Actually, I mostly agree with you.

The editing done in those four segments was unprofessional, to say the least. The shot where the two were shown side on as Gibson asked his question, and the cut was made to a later part of her answer was jarring, because they didn't cut to another view, but stayed on that side shot - Gibson sat still, so he didn't move in the cut - but Palin did, and it made the whole thing practically jump out at you.

I know they did their editing to fit the broadcast time - they do that all the time. But the quality of the editing here, by all three shows, was poor, both in technical matters and in content.

Obviously, had they done it better, this thread wouldn't exist.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Valhall
 


Once again with the beauty pagent attack, it is jealousy? If that is the basis for your opinon, then excuse me if I find it seriously lacking in objective reasoning. Any comments on her actual statements?



No, it's not jealousy. And what a vacuous way to declare your disagreement to my opinion of her qualifications.

She's clearly - I said CLEARLY - a bubble-head. The "beauty pageant" referral is to THAT...not her looks, but her bubble-headedness.

You want my reply to her responses? They are infantile compared to the level of responsibility she is currently running to hold. Infantile to a level that should strike fear in the hearts of American citizens.

And as I CLEARLY stated in my previous post, reading the fuller version of her responses only deepens that opinion. I don't think I've left myself any wiggle room here in the interpretation of what I think of her qualifications. The woman has virtually none. She is what WE WOMEN in professional careers call "a parrot". She guides her answers off of what she can glean from other people's statements and then attempts an answer that is ambiguous, yet frought with words she believes will paint her to "be in the know".

She's a token woman....an unqualified token woman. The Republicans have selected a token woman for vice-president.

YAY! A tremendous slap in the face of all women who are actually working toward sincere recognition of their accomplishments, experience and expertise; and a tremendous slap in the face of all men who have worked toward the same.

She's a token - like a plug-nickel or a Chucky Cheese game token.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
You want my reply to her responses? They are infantile compared to the level of responsibility she is currently running to hold. Infantile to a level that should strike fear in the hearts of American citizens.

I don't agree. If I had a dollar for every time I heard myself or someone else say they would like to vote for the guy who doesn't want the job... I would be wealthy now.

Palin wasn't looking for this. But her heart is in the right place. She has the appeal of somewhere between Princess Di and John Kennedy to many people. She is good enough, and smart enough, and dog gone it... people like her!

The media is trying to sabotage her, but I don't think it will work. This interview is only the first example of possibly 4-8 years of media bias that has been a huge rectal lesion on the American public for the large part of my lifetime. Many people are just sick of it.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
She's a token woman....an unqualified token woman. The Republicans have selected a token woman for vice-president.




Originally posted by Valhall
She's a token - like a plug-nickel or a Chucky Cheese game token.


Sexist? Sounds like it.

God help it if a Republican or Right-winger said Barack Hussein Obama was just a "token" negro.

She is qualified to be President, just as she is to be Vice-President IF the people elect her.

I don't care if she is:
(1) A a peanut farmer from Georgia.
(2) A "community organizer" in Illinois who has spent most of his time as a Senator campaigning to be President.
(3) Some vague Governor of a state full of hillbillies.

IF the people elect her, she is qualified.

(Edit) Just to be clear, in (3) I was referring to Bill Clinton.

[edit on 17-9-2008 by CreeWolf]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf
I don't care if she was just a peanut farmer from Georgia, a "community organizer" in Illinois who has spent most of his time as a Senator campaigning to be President, or some vague Governor of a state full of hillbillies, IF the people elect her, she is qualified.

I like your style, but I disagree. If you consider the word "qualify" to mean "select" then you are correct (and I guess that is one obscure meaning of "qualify", for sure.)

But if you consider "qualify" to mean "prove capable", then you are basing your statement on an assumption that I think I can prove false: The USA people are not intelligent (I mean well-informed) enough to qualify a president or any other candidate.

This whole election is nothing but an interesting sporting match, which makes us feel like we have some power over our government, when we really don't.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Buck Division
 


I understand what you are getting at. The American people, going from my viewpoint, can elect an 18 year old transgendered Communist village idiot if he is a citizen of the US and gets the majority of people to support him. They probably aren't going to though.

That's kind of what seperates America's Constitution from everyone elses. There really are no minimum qualifications in elected offices except for age and citizenship, at least the way I believe our country's forefathers intended.

IMO, this is a good thing.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf

I don't care if she is:
(1) A a peanut farmer from Georgia.
(2) A "community organizer" in Illinois who has spent most of his time as a Senator campaigning to be President.
(3) Some vague Governor of a state full of hillbillies.

IF the people elect her, she is qualified.

(Edit) Just to be clear, in (3) I was referring to Bill Clinton.


Don't worry - I was able to follow the bouncing ball on all three examples. I knew exactly who you were referring to.

BIG DIFFERENCE HERE - she hasn't been elected yet. Guess what - your qualifications still count for consideration right up until election day.

She's not qualified, nor has she shown mental aptitude to even fake it well.

[edit on 9-17-2008 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

BIG DIFFERENCE HERE - she hasn't been elected yet. Guess what - your qualifications still count for consideration right up until election day.



Originally posted by CreeWolf

(2) A "community organizer" in Illinois who has spent most of his time as a Senator campaigning to be President.



Neither has (2)! And yes, I agree.

But is she "trying" to fake it well? To me THAT is the big difference. She is what we will get. Unlike Obama, you don't know what you're going to get....

[edit on 17-9-2008 by CreeWolf]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Valhall
 


Well, the only reason you have given so far for slamming her is because she won a beauty contest, and that is an extremely thin argument. What is your point, that all beauty contestants are stupid? or just the winners?

Maybe if you would take the time to point out one of Palin's responses to one of the interviewer's questions, and explain how it is infantile, then you might come off as someone with a reasonable point of view.

Personally, I think Palin comes off as a lot more intelligent than Obama. Obama's statement about Reagan being more of an agent of change than Clinton was so convoluted, it made absolutely no sense. It sounded half way intelligent, until reviewed, and then if became even completely inane.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fathom
This is the end of the msm, we will all look back on this election as the year the media died.
How can they have any credibility after what they have done on the last two presidential elections?

This Gibson screw up will also help to bolster Palin/McCain's numbers.

Honestly I kind of want them to keep screwing up and getting caught.


Is this what it has come to? Hoping that the media will screw up enough to get your guy/gal elected? How about getting some qualified candidates that do not look stupid no matter how much editing is done or say just worrying about what the candidates give you to go on and finding the one that is qualified. The candidates have all the media available they want. Neither side can complain about how they are portrayed when either side can go on any channel, any time, and say whatever they like. If you truly want to win by Charlie Gibson being a jerk, then I am very sorry for what has become of that representative republic called the US.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
If Palin isn't qualified to be veep, the Obama certainly isn't qualified to be POTUS. I have yet to read a rational argument that demonstrates that this isn't true. Most of these articles I have seen on the internet are nothing but cheap shots. None of them actually take on the issues. I think it is pathetic what mainstream journalism tries to force onto the public.

Palin comes off as more reasonable, more polished, and certainly more in control of her emotions than Gibson, who keeps trying to trap her, and shows his emotion as she dodges his thin attempts to brow beat her and responds intelligently and reasonably.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Unfortunately, you have to also consider if a VP candidate is qualified to be president. Especially when the president they will be serving under claimed over 4 years ago that he would be too old to run for president in '08. D'oh!



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by MorningStar8741
 


McCain doesn't look like he is going to drop dead anytime now. Odds are very high, that Palin will be able to gain considerable experience before she has to worry about stepping up as POTUS. Even then, she is as qualified to be President at this point in time as Obama is. The difference being that she will most likely not have to take on the responibility, while Obama will have to step up to the role from day one.

I gotta wonder, while Obama is busy concentrating on the vision thing, will Biden be running the country, ala Cheney?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Palin comes off as more reasonable, more polished, and certainly more in control of her emotions than Gibson,


The power of subjective interpretation I guess


I felt Gibson was stoic like a robot.

When Gibson asks Palin about the 'Bush Doctrine' she gets defensive and snaps at him!


who keeps trying to trap her, and shows his emotion as she dodges his thin attempts to brow beat her and responds intelligently and reasonably.


The only thing I saw her dodging was some of the questions.

Meh, whatever.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by CreeWolf
God help it if a Republican or Right-winger said Barack Hussein Obama was just a "token" negro.


Well I have heard just that plenty of times from 'the Right' myself. Plenty.

Do you mean officially?

Well it's not like Obama's compaign has officially said Palin was 'the women token'... have they? Did I miss that?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Valhall
 


Well, the only reason you have given so far for slamming her is because she won a beauty contest, and that is an extremely thin argument. What is your point, that all beauty contestants are stupid? or just the winners?


Unless you can find and present where I've done that, you stand convicted of being a liar with these false accusations posted.

You know - it's intellectually dishonest dopes like yourself who make discussing political issues equivalent to pushing a rope.

For the record, I have already stated the following:

1. she has no experience and she exhibits "not even understanding the questions" concerning foreign policy and affairs,
2. she thinks proximity equates to experience,
3. she has acted unconstitutionally both at her mayoral post and her gubernatorial post
4. her ethics (or maybe it is sheer stupidity???) from number 3 are frightening.

Why would you try to call Obama token? He won the nomination via campaign. Palen didn't win anything - she got picked by one person. There's not even a similarity.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
1. she has no experience and she exhibits "not even understanding the questions" concerning foreign policy and affairs,


Debatable opinion.


Originally posted by Valhall
2. she thinks proximity equates to experience,


Distortion.


Originally posted by Valhall
3. she has acted unconstitutionally both at her mayoral post and her gubernatorial post


Alleged and never adjudicated.


Originally posted by Valhall
4. her ethics (or maybe it is sheer stupidity???) from number 3 are frightening.


And yet most in Alaska think she's far more ethical than pretty much anyone else on the political landscape.


Originally posted by Valhall
Why would you try to call Obama token? He won the nomination via campaign. Palen didn't win anything - she got picked by one person. There's not even a similarity.


Well this isn't really my position, but do you think electorates are incapable of selecting tokens? In fact, with respect to Obama, wasn't this Ferraro's precise argument about the Democratic electorate?



[edit on 18-9-2008 by loam]



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join