Recorded speech and questioning, sure. Ok, so how much? How many questions? Over what length of time?
That's not a measure. It was a feeble attempt at portraying yourself as having one. But in the end, it fails.
No. All it comes down to is that you're desperately trying to dismiss a claim with no argument of your own. She did run for vice-president, and not only could she not say what the VP did, but during the course of the campaign and debates she never came out with anything substantial. There's no evidence that she had a coherent platform or could defend it against aggressive questioning. Do you have proof of the contrary? I mean, you keep implying that there is this wealth of information and if only I'd research I'd find it. But yet, there is no argument you've thus far constructed which has contained any of it.
If this were picking up on one gaffe and running with it, it would be one thing. But there's a long list of them, compared to what? What do you have demonstrating competence, solid platform, and the ability to coherently defend it?
I think you can't get over the fact that you have painted yourself into a corner and are about to get beat down with your own words. What's the measure, Ikari. Can you quantify it in any tangible way at all?
All ready have, several times. The fact that you don't want to address it and sidetrack along preconceived notions to fit your personal bias has stated much as to your own ability to defend against the allegations.
"Nuh-uh...I know you are but what am I? Huh?" :roll:
It's measured, in this thread in fact. I'm sorry that you don't want to accept it. But that's your inability to properly resolve issues between your personal bias and reality.
Or a total lack of creativity and ability to respond without resorting to childish mocking. What are you gonna do next? Start playing the "I'm not touching you" game? :lol:
Resorting to childish mocking...you mean like calling me a basketcase? If you're going to contradict yourself, try waiting more than 1 post to do so. You may be able to get away with it if you allow enough time in between contradictions.
No, what you've done is said that her gaffe is reflective of her all the time. You looked at her momentary paralysis on a simple question and used that to say she can't answer complex ones all the while ignoring the complex answers to many policy issues she has given.
No, not in the least. Again, your bias here. I've said that she has consistently demonstrated an ability to not be able to answer questions, simple questions, in such a way as it makes me question her overall ability to do any of it. You're trying to make it sound like I took one gaffe and said "Oh...look at how stupid she is". There isn't one, it's a string of consistent behavior.
It isn't a realistic analysis. In fact, it's exactly as I said before: lazy and shallow.
No need to be so harsh on yourself. I'm sure that if you could make it past your personal bias on the issue and take in all the information you can beat your lazy and shallow arguments.
So then, no definable measurement of how we arrive at these conclusions. Just mindless regurgitation of "I like...totally dislike Palin and you totally should too, duh!"
Already given to you. Just because you don't want to accept it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I am far from insulted by you being mindless enough to make the same statements I made back at me. If you are supposed to be one of the examples of libertarian thinkers, no wonder they can't ever win an election. :lol:
Childish retorts eh? I thought you were bitching about those earlier. Oh well.
The libertarian party has many reason why they can't get recognized on a national scale, but that's neither here nor there.
