Palin Blasts Emanuel for Calling Dem Idea 'Retarded'

that bitch talks hella smack, yo

SouthernDemocrat said:

Right here folks we have a perfect example of the typical Palin supporter. Notice the complete lack of grammar in the post. No capitals, and some kind of an attempt at wit that is made by putting everything into one line statements, even though they would still be complete nonsense if they actually were assembled into a paragraph.

Tell me Prof, do you by chance regularly wear t-shirts with a wolf depicted on them?

Click to expand...

you have nailed it ... definitively
anyone who abstains from grammatical conventions must be a palin supporter
if they refuse to capitalize then it is apparent they must also hate capitalism
if they do not use periods then they have no point
absolutely witless

At this point I agree with Palin.
The so-called professionals should use higher class more professional English.
And, BTW, I am not what one would call a "Palin supporter."

so now obtuse obama suddenly does not begrudge 17 million dollar bonuses to the ceo's of goldman sachs and jp morgan, despite taxpayers' massive bailouts of the same, because lots of baseball players make even more, some who don't even make it to the world series

Obama Doesn?t ?Begrudge? Bonuses for Blankfein, Dimon (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

LOL!

does anyone on either side of the great palin divide find that comment particularly politic?

the putzy president has been all over the place on this topic, like most others

no wonder his entire agenda is dead---health care, cap and trade, reg reform, his bank tax, his debt commission, gitmo, civilianizing terrorists, reaching out to iran, climate accords, negotiating currency with hu, coopting putin vs persia...

all that's left is ESCALATION in afghanistan

how's that make you FEEL, folks on all sides?

so sad

barack hussein obama is the most incompetent politician america has ever produced

in ONE YEAR he's squandered awesome advantages few chief execs have ever enjoyed---both houses, a media thrilled, a world hi fiving, an american electorate excited by his historic prospects...

now, nada

party on, my gossipy pals, let's get hyphy

misterman said:

And her supporters will swallow it whole. It's really quite amazing. It's like there was a group of dolts in reserve that were too stupid even for Limbaugh or Beck or Coulter, and only Palin could win them over.

Click to expand...

When you call Limbaugh stupid, you lose all credibility. You might not like his views, but the man's intellect makes you look like a third-grader.

Erod said:

When you call Limbaugh stupid, you lose all credibility. You might not like his views, but the man's intellect makes you look like a third-grader.

Click to expand...

Really now.

And if you read more carefully, you will notice that I wasn't calling Limbaugh stupid anyway. Try it. It might make you look like a third-grader, in more ways than one.

misterman said:

Really now.

And if you read more carefully, you will notice that I wasn't calling Limbaugh stupid anyway. Try it. It might make you look like a third-grader, in more ways than one.

Click to expand...

"Too stupid even for Limbaugh, Beck, or Coulter" might not directly refer to Limbaugh and company, but it implies it.

It amazes me how Palin gets to you so much, yet you tolerate Pelosi, Rahm, Reid, Frank, and Obama like as if they're "top notch" folks. LOL

Erod said:

"Too stupid even for Limbaugh, Beck, or Coulter" might not directly refer to Limbaugh and company, but it implies it.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But it doesn't directly refer to it, like you said. Certainly not enough for me to "lose all credibility." Seems that if you want to walk in here and accuse someone of lacking credibility and sounding like a third-grader, you'd want to be more precise.

No such implication was meant, by the way. I was singularly focused on their consumers.

It amazes me how Palin gets to you so much, yet you tolerate Pelosi, Rahm, Reid, Frank, and Obama like as if they're "top notch" folks. LOL

Click to expand...

Do I tolerate Pelosi, Rahm, Reid, Frank, and Obama like as if they're "top notch" folks?

How do you know that?

Credibility, remember.

misterman said:

Perhaps. But it doesn't directly refer to it, like you said. Certainly not enough for me to "lose all credibility." Seems that if you want to walk in here and accuse someone of lacking credibility and sounding like a third-grader, you'd want to be more precise.

No such implication was meant, by the way. I was singularly focused on their consumers.



Do I tolerate Pelosi, Rahm, Reid, Frank, and Obama like as if they're "top notch" folks?

How do you know that?

Credibility, remember.

Click to expand...

Do you?


if not who are top notch dems?

LOL Emanuel attempting a insult after looking like this:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Do you?


if not who are top notch dems?

Click to expand...

I'm waiting for Erod's answer. He seems to know.

misterman said:

I'm waiting for Erod's answer. He seems to know.

Click to expand...

Or you could just answer. :shrug:

BTW, I mentioned earlier that some people with intellectual disabilities go to college now. Everyone who didn't go to college on this thread, yet mocked the funny-looking retards, raise your hand. There are retards with more education than you. Think about that.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Or you could just answer. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Why? I didn't bring it up, and I don't think it's relevant. Someone called into question my credibility, and I'm returning the favor several times over.

your septuagenarian prof is particularly surprised that in plenteous posts on this topic not one of our semipro pundits has pointed out ms palin's particular repainting of the tea party in her hi profile peroration in nashville

ms palin went way out of her way at the convention to more fully define the partially formed movement, to expand its scope

she spent the first TWENTY MINUTES of her speech talking FOREIGN POLICY

to TEA drinkers

hello

THIS is new

and the particular prospect of the policy she spelled out pertained most pointedly to TERRORISM

that is, mrs alaska drew a solid connection from tea drinkers' disposition towards fundamental islamic terrorists who would vaporize little girls and their grammas to the lipton lovers' america first propensities

quite prescient, really

speaking macro-politically, that is

and positive to pay off

There has been a steady current of thought in the movement, that I suppose by my very nature am somehow apart of, to remove or completely alter language. A great many of them take the idea that language is the key, and by altering language purposefully, one develops a different thought. For instance, a great many in the movement are offended when someone says something like "Down Syndrome Child". The proposition has sense been that saying something like "a child with Down Syndrome" will convince the speaker that the identity of the object in front of them is a person (or more specifically, a child) and not the disability category.

Now, I am a very big skeptic of this type of rhetorical mind-trick, and have tried to get into lengthy conversations about this with others that they are approaching the problem the wrong way. With these things, a great deal of the time it is personal: the teacher, the counselor, the parent of someone with a disability, so you have to be cautious, right? They have every right to be sensitive, because, really, I know very extensively what these parents, etc. think about this issue.

Well, my line of reasoning was that it was unfortunately believing that changing the language may miraculously alter perceptions of disabilities, when more than likely it won't. I thought that on the whole, people outside of the movement find political correctness (well, when the political correctness doesn't better suit their purposes anyhow-just like everyone else) to be bothersome. Likewise it would probably create more social awkwardness, or maybe to one degree or another, a great sense of difference between one person or another. This would be antithetical to the whole concept behind changing the language to reduce stigma, but I think it has happened a great deal.

Another problem I had with it was that it seemed to take over too much of the public relations campaign-this idea that we must be politically correct. Granted, this is nothing entirely new, because race and gender relations experienced a great change in the 1960s and 1970s, and the Disability movement rode of the same tide as other minorities. But, despite the fact that the movement is constantly trying to improve the lives of people with disabilities, whether it be through legislation, legislation tweaks, training seminars, whatever have you, the public image for the most part seems to be that the only time the movement appears in the press is to complain that someone had depicted individuals with disabilities in a derogatory way or that perhaps science is explaining why more people are being diagnosed. Those stories, are far and few between to begin with, so I feel as if the movement is latching onto high profile targets for the wrong reasons.

Language and the thoughts attached to the words themselves are incredibly difficult to change consciously. There may even be something entirely unique about this situation in comparison with race or gender. Is there something nearly universal about measuring one's self in comparison to others, and in particular, one's perceived level of intelligence or social adaptability? Are we going to be able to do anything to change that? Many seem to be able to think so, but I am far more skeptical of that than I am in the notion that public policy can be better molded than pure thoughts.

Can we be skeptical about Sarah Palin's bona fides? It is not out of the realm of possibility. She is a politician of a particular party, grabbing onto a particular issue that is traditionally seen as a liberal issue. At the same time, I would be hesitant to fully believe it was mere political posturing, even if the woman herself uses the very same language without reflecting upon it.

Fiddytree said:

There has been a steady current of thought in the movement, that I suppose by my very nature am somehow apart of, to remove or completely alter language. A great many of them take the idea that language is the key, and by altering language purposefully, one develops a different thought. For instance, a great many in the movement are offended when someone says something like "Down Syndrome Child". The proposition has sense been that saying something like "a child with Down Syndrome" will convince the speaker that the identity of the object in front of them is a person (or more specifically, a child) and not the disability category.

Click to expand...

I think it makes perfect sense to try to use this construction, if only to help move people's attitudes for that very reason - it's a person first.

However, I don't get "offended" or upset when someone doesn't do it. It's no big deal.

Well, my line of reasoning was that it was unfortunately believing that changing the language may miraculously alter perceptions of disabilities, when more than likely it won't.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone thinks it will "miraculously change" anything, but it helps.

Another problem I had with it was that it seemed to take over too much of the public relations campaign-this idea that we must be politically correct.

Click to expand...

I agree - it sucks the wind out of more important things.

then, on the other hand (literally), we've got press secty gibbs MOCKING mrs palin by scribbling notes on his left hand and waving it around for the press corps to see

minutes earlier, obama's at the same podium prescribing the moving past of petty politics

do you think it's leaderly-like and visionary for the white house to resort to teasing and taunting its political opponents?

including some of those who don't even hold office?

you see, some people keep their eyes on the big picture stuff

others can't tell the difference

petty put downs and paltry aspersions take the place of policy

the president's team is pathetic

and, of course, it's not going over

with gibbs' actual audience, that is

Press room laughter dies down - PATRICK GAVIN | POLITICO CLICK

no surprise

the press corps expect more than playground pranks

I was listening to NPR today. They were discussing the current draft for DSM V. They will be changing the term 'Mentally Retarded' to 'Intellectually Disabled'. It's definitely a more apt term, and at this time lacks the emotional baggage of the term 'Retarded'.

Understanding "Mild MR" and other Intellectual Disabilities

What is the "proper" name for Mental Retardation?
There are a number of different terms used to describe individuals with cognitive problems. These terms sometimes reflect different etiologies (or causes) and other times terms are changed due to political will or the noble desire to reduce their stigmatizing impact. Some of the terms for cognitive difficulties used in recent years include mental retardation, intellectual disabilities, intellectual disability, cognitive disability, developmental delay, developmental handicap, learning disabilities, borderline intellectual functioning, developmental delay (also pervasive developmental disorder or autistic spectrum disorders also sometimes include intellectual concerns), cognitive disorders, dementia, neurodevelopmental disorders and neurocognitive disorders. Difficulties related to acquired cognitive difficulties will be addressed on another site, with that article to be linked to here.

There is much debate about the terms mild, moderate and profound "Mental Retardation," and many government agencies have already been moving to stop using the term. While the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR Fourth Edition (Text Revision) continues to use the term "Mental Retardation," the DSM-V task force has already signalled a desire to move away from this term toward a different one such as "intellectual disabilities" when the next edition is published.

This is in keeping with The American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities which was formerly known as the American Association of Mental Retardation.

The field has been moving away from "MR" for some time, and will continue to move towards different terms such as intellectual disability. Check back in the future for more references, resources and commentary. An article on adaptive behaviors and the less than specific cut off in cognitive abilities and functioning (functional abilities) between mild MR (intellectual disability) and borderline intellectual functioning will be posted soon.

Click to expand...

misterman said:

I think it makes perfect sense to try to use this construction, if only to help move people's attitudes for that very reason - it's a person first.

However, I don't get "offended" or upset when someone doesn't do it. It's no big deal.



I don't think anyone thinks it will "miraculously change" anything, but it helps.



I agree - it sucks the wind out of more important things.

Click to expand...

Yes, but at the same time, it is a tricky proposition to suggest that this somehow reduces that sense of otherness that many of these children/adults experience day in and day out (whether or not it is directed at them by others, or an internal observation by the disabled). Some actually do believe this is the substantive issue at hand (or scoff at those who do not use the language trick, which on occasion got me in trouble before I disclosed myself as having the disability being spoken of), and much of the language is not tempered with a dose of skepticism. I have a hard time believing that deep down they believe this will work so that they can then get to work, but there is at the very least, a slight tendency to live in the purely abstract rather than in the application process.

MyOwnDrum said:

and at this time lacks the emotional baggage of the term 'Retarded'.

Click to expand...

Well, at least for a time. Emotional baggage can easily be transferred from one term to another, unless the strategy has been to lengthen and complicate the label to somehow make it difficult to say in casual conversation. All it takes is time and the problem of stigma will come back in that form again. It will be difficult to create a term that is mostly isolated from taint of stigma.

MyOwnDrum said:

I was listening to NPR today. They were discussing the current draft for DSM V. They will be changing the term 'Mentally Retarded' to 'Intellectually Disabled'. It's definitely a more apt term, and at this time lacks the emotional baggage of the term 'Retarded'.

Click to expand...

Except in a few decades snotty teenagers and White House chiefs of staff and jerks on the internet will be saying "that's ****ing intellectually disabled!"

But yeah, when the DSM changes, it'll probably be an appropriate time to stop considering "retarded" offensive when used as an insult.

Fiddytree said:

Yes, but at the same time, it is a tricky proposition to suggest that this somehow reduces that sense of otherness that many of these children/adults experience day in and day out (whether or not it is directed at them by others, or an internal observation by the disabled).

Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not, but it might help the rest of us reduce the sense of otherness. As they say, would you call a child with cancer a "cancer child"?

Some actually do believe this is the substantive issue at hand (or scoff at those who do not use the language trick, which on occasion got me in trouble before I disclosed myself as having the disability being spoken of),

Click to expand...

As long as you reveal it, it should be okay - sometimes.