Who is stupider: Palin, Bush, or Bachmann?

reply to post by TupacShakur


Actually, as a linguist, Palin is not wrong to create new words. We may look down upon it from a societal stand point, but the truth is that making up words or changing them by analogy is normal. You cannot have your cake and eat it too (as a liberal) because we tend to go ahead and defend the language intricacies of minorities that follow the same line. It's no different, from a linguistic perspective, when Bush or Palin says something not mainstream than when a minority speech community does. Also, Bush appears to have "Porky Pig" syndrome (Spoonerisms, so to speak) where you change syllables between two words. (cf. Brest and brightest).

Bachmann's recent "CHutzpah" comment is along the same line. It's no different, from my point of view, then when Olive Garden calls it "bruSHetta" instead of "brusKetta", the way it's supposed to be pronounced. There's nothing us linguists hate more than prescriptivism, whether it comes from the left or the right. "Ain't" is a word, too, you know. I had a guy correct my pronunciation of "macchiato" once because I didn't linger long enough on the /k/ sound (cch) like an Italian would. I had another guy correct my pronunciation of "caprese"...I had to educate him that the way I said it was the way my neapolitan grandmother said it, not necessarily the acme of Milan's pronunciation, but still valid.

Ok, so that's all as far as my "apologizing" for these three. The democrats always like to critique Republicans from a linguistic base and I think that is, well, baseless. It only creates an ad hominem attack that does nothing to correct the inaccuracies of their policies, and a lot to polarize the surface arguments of real, God-fearing American folk and Liberal elitism.

That being said, I don't think they are stupid, but definitely ignorant. They are very shrewd, manipulative power-seekers who know exactly what they are / were doing, despite their disdain for bookish learning.

EDIT: For those who don't know exactly what I'm talking about, I have to make something clear. It's one thing to critique a group (whoever) on prescriptive grounds - that is, to make fun of their pronunciation or dialectal use of words (ain't) or expressions. It is totally valid to critique their use of language from a descriptivist standpoint. That is, to look at how they might be using language to shape or mold an argument. That is 110% valid.

For example, it's a cheap shot to make fun of Bush for bumbling sayings or saying "chilrens". It is very appropriate to analyze the semantic framing that goes into the context of promoting war (such as framing Iraq in the context of 9/11).

From my perspective, the verdict is still out on Palin's "reload" comment that she recently rehashed. I would have to see the bigger picture to decide on whether or not this is code or a metaphor that perhaps circulates in her speech community (it is not abnormal for people in certain social circles to extend their metaphors to external areas - for example, gun owners to use gun terminology in everyday life). She may have heard this expression frequently from the circle she associates with.

I am a regestered card carrying democrate and I think this thread is totally unnesessary and frankly just plain mean. Whats the point OP.

Originally posted by Hawking
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

And this is why our mediocre president will be easily re-elected. I'd love to see a realistic alternative in the next election but it's like these people are working to get him votes at this point.

Obama doesn't even really need to campaign when his opponents are tea party members and people who think "barrock insane owebowmore" is a clever thing to say...

BTW I love how conservatives hate Katie Couric for asking Sarah Palin what she likes to read. Incredible

edit on 24-7-2011 by Hawking because: (no reason given)

Don't you think that "mediocre" is a dramatic overstatement of his worth?

reply to post by TupacShakur


Smartest to dumbest.

Bush
Bachmann
Palin

Funny how Republicans are the only ones mentioned, but thats liberals for you.

reply to post by inforeal

Bush was the worst president in history and probably ruined the country

Really? You might want to take a look at one James Earl Carter. Or James Buchanan. Or Ulysses Grant. Even the sainted Franklin Delano Roosevelt might bear some scrutiny in the great "worst ever" sweepstakes... You might find, should you be willing to shed the partisan blinders, that George Bush isn't even in the running for second... There's more than a few ahead of him, including our present President.

Sadly, politics isnt about intellect.

Its about money, and "who you know", or in the recent cases, "who you're related to"

Yet, Ive known extremely smart people who would be really lame leaders because they lack courage, charisma, and basic social skills.

Thats why the modern day politician is basically nothing more than a figure head, someone good looking, who can simply read off a teleprompter and smile at the camera.

The smart people are the ones behind the scenes, pulling the puppet strings. I dont think any "smart" person would actually want to be president.

Originally posted by fooks
ya, ok fx, just vote obama again and let real people vote for the POTUS.

Maybe.
Ultimately we are voting in personality more than anything..
Some real people may also vote for Obama.

palin is the best, she is and would be less corruptible than some guy that looks like he should be POTUS. romney, perry, kerry, edwards, screw them guys.

She is highly corruptable...even watching how she simply can't take any heat demonstrates how little there is of her. Sorry, but the potus is required to spend a lot of time in the firing lines and being an adult...you can't just quit the presidency halfway through because its too hard, this isn't some governor job.
The only way I would be agreeable for Palin to be POTUS is only for the desire to watch an epic fail play out that would resonate for decades to tarnish the gop for good...problem is, the mess even a 1 term from her would be too costly to allow...

i don't trust anyone who looks like their job.

Not sure what that means...beyond wearing a suit, what does a politician look like? So what, we vote in larry the cable guy?

The only "republican" that seems a really good fit for the job, is the unelectable one. Ron Paul is intelligent, very conservative fiscally, but in a way that may actually work, etc...
I don't see eye to eye on many of his views, however, I would not fear a presidency under him...He would make the west a little more safe with his actions I believe.

But again, unelectable...too against the organizations current manifestation...so, got to eventually consider reality.
The reality is, this is probably going to be between Romney and Obama

Actually, who am I kidding, Obama has this in the bag. Unless he does something like eat a baby on stage while burning a flag, then its almost a given...You will also find most big contributors will focus more on house and senate seats than pushing for a presidency win...

So, the debate should really be focusing in on...Who is the bigger tool, Boehner or Pelosi

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by inforeal

 

Bush was the worst president in history and probably ruined the country

Really? You might want to take a look at one James Earl Carter. Or James Buchanan. Or Ulysses Grant. Even the sainted Franklin Delano Roosevelt might bear some scrutiny in the great "worst ever" sweepstakes... You might find, should you be willing to shed the partisan blinders, that George Bush isn't even in the running for second... There's more than a few ahead of him, including our present President.

By what scale?

For all time lowest approval ratings, Pres GW Bush is only beat by Nixon and Truman.

FDR at his worst had an approval rating that beats all commers at their worst approval rating?

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by WhiteDevil013


Although I agree with you, I will say its still very important to vote in the smartest person available.
This is because, the advisers, the special interests, etc...will constantly be whispering to you to do things, be it veto something, enact through executive power something else, etc..

A smart person has a chance of standing up against them and do..well, the smart thing..all done behind the scenes.

A good example, Bush was a total tool...he was pretty much the vocal chamber of his advisers and such...and because of that, he is now linked to torture, fraud, etc. Thats what happens when you let the fingers rule the puppet

reply to post by Alxandro


Man I sooo wish that I could give you more stars!!! Obama is by far the most stupid!!!

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Hillbilly123069

 

I'm sorry. The grammar was to much to bare. The correct term is "more stupid."

Correct form: The grammar was too much to bare.

We all make mistakes, even you Albert Einstein.

That is right, we all make mistakes..........so what is the point of this thread?

I bet if everything you ever said and did was recorded we could have one heck of a youtube playlist.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by inforeal

 

Bush was the worst president in history and probably ruined the country

Really? You might want to take a look at one James Earl Carter. Or James Buchanan. Or Ulysses Grant. Even the sainted Franklin Delano Roosevelt might bear some scrutiny in the great "worst ever" sweepstakes... You might find, should you be willing to shed the partisan blinders, that George Bush isn't even in the running for second... There's more than a few ahead of him, including our present President.

By what scale?

For all time lowest approval ratings, Pres GW Bush is only beat by Nixon and Truman.

FDR at his worst had an approval rating that beats all commers at their worst approval rating?

en.wikipedia.org...

I dont think you can determine who was the worst president by approval ratings. The success of a presidency cant be measured while they are in office but years later when all the affects unfold......in my opinion.

I think all those who voted for Obama and will vote for him again are the smartest. They know how to do nothing and get paid on the backs of those who do work. Smart folks...do nothing ... call the workers stupid...and get paid for it.

reply to post by Indigo5


Effects on society, as a whole perhaps?

James Buchanan was a major factor in starting the Civil War.

Jimmy Carter was the beginning of the "malaise" that gripped our nation for several years.

FDR, and his wondrous New Deal that has helped, in many ways, to put us exactly where we are today...bankrupt, and all too willing to let the govt. do our thinking for us.

Ullyses Grant was perhaps a victim of his corrupt cabinet, and a victim of being too trusting. Quite a crime, I know.

It's a matter of opinion, to be sure.

Was Bush a great President? No. But he's a long way from the worst, IMHO.

Bush was the worst President in history, until January 2009, when Obama took office. The past 2-1/2 years have been nothing but Bush policies in overdrive. We went from 2 wars to at least 6 now. We had an even BIGGER bailout of the banks. Unemployment has gone through the roof. Yeah, Obama is MUCH worse than Bush.

reply to post by MrOysterhead

That is right, we all make mistakes..........so what is the point of this thread?

To show how two of the people that might be our president are stupid. And apparently to push some anti-republican liberal internet trolling mainstream media propaganda....

I bet if everything you ever said and did was recorded we could have one heck of a youtube playlist.

You're probably right, but you would never catch me mistaking North Korea for our allies, or saying that carbon dioxide is completely harmless.

I'm not the one running for president either, some dude on an internet forum using improper grammar doesn't really compare to the next potential president of the country not knowing who our allies are or what the vice president does.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Yes, slanderous as in “a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report” provided by a biased left wing media or source, such as this very thread. The statement that these three individuals are proficient in misleading is irrelevant as this same statement could be applied to the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid or Clinton just as easily. More so, the fact that any of these individuals are so proficient at misleading the masses is only a testament to their intelligence and superiority.

It does make me wonder however, if these three are the epitome of intellectual deficiency, then who, in your opinion, would be a political genius?

I have recently travelled across this great country and I have a few observations that may interest those who are still here, soaking up the 'duh.'

First off, let me just go ahead and 'out' myself, I am a liberal unequivocally, in the ballet box at least.

I care more about representation and the freedom of expression and diversity MORE than balancing a budget, or drilling for more oil.

Having said that, let me give my fellow liberals some advice.

Stop it!

There are very decent, fine people who do not speak as you do.

These are salt of the earth people, farmers and hunters and 'good ol' boys.'

You perpetuate the stereotype of those 'New York and California liberals' who don't know sh!t about the Americans who really make the country run when you get all superficial about grammar and syntax.

These people vote for the GOP because they are the only ones whom they sense can even begin to 'represent' them.

At a stop in rural Alabama, I found more tolerance for diversity than in Brooklyn.

We have to give up this false dichotomy, and realize that we have more in common than is first apparent, and we will do well to suspend judgements based on superficial bull(snip).

If there is ever a political party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, it will rule this country in one election cycle.

My point is, stop being so critical of the way people speak, and focus on inclusion.

reply to post by TupacShakur


IDK bro they seem fairly smart to me, you know with all those millions of dollars they have.


Meanwhile you and I are in line at Wal Mart.