Yes, it actually happened that he misspoke on national TV, and furthermore it's generally recognized that in fact he has a tendency to misspeak, but it's also generally held not to be his main mode of interacting with the universe, nor particularly reflective of his actual state of knowledge about how the world works, and thus, indeed, it doesn't matter even one little bit.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has a tendency to confirm a different estimation of the significance of her verbal conduct - including especially her unremitting awkwardness and incoherence.
You don't actually know what went on. Like everyone else, your pick and choose which stories to believe, and whom to call "fools" and whom to judge credible. One additional problem for you is that her defenders are also interested parties, politically and financially interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Scheunemann
Your biggest problem is her: Who she is, what she says, and how she says it.
absolutely not... D-Fish has proven to me that he's a smart, well-intentioned dude. He comes across to me as a really good feller. WIth sufficient preparation and study, he might turn out to be a much better politician than point guard.
I would have found it incredible that Palin really could be that ignorant, and would have guessed that some passing exchange was being willfully misinterpreted and blown out of proporition - a sarcastic remark or stray misstatement treated as though actually intended and representative of a state of knowledge. At one point, IIRC, she is supposed to have seemed to think that Africa was a "country." I thought it more likely, and still think it's possible, that she made a slip of the tongue during high-pressure debate preparations, or that some other exchange was turned by those hostile to her into something it really wasn't. Yet by now, after having seen her prove and prove again that her critics were justified in their suspicions of what she represented or would come to represent, I find the alternative view - in short, that she was and is kind of an idiot, in no way qualified for high office unless you presume that no office is worthy of respect - more persuasive.
https://www.google.com/search?q=miguel+doesn%27t+get+it&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
Yes, it actually happened that he misspoke on national TV, and furthermore it's generally recognized that in fact he has a tendency to misspeak, but it's also generally held not to be his main mode of interacting with the universe, nor particularly reflective of his actual state of knowledge about how the world works, and thus, indeed, it doesn't matter even one little bit.
Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has a tendency to confirm a different estimation of the significance of her verbal conduct - including especially her unremitting awkwardness and incoherence.
To think that that youtube proves what you seem to think it proves would prove you unqualified to judge such proofs.
You don't actually know what went on. Like everyone else, your pick and choose which stories to believe, and whom to call "fools" and whom to judge credible. One additional problem for you is that her defenders are also interested parties, politically and financially interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Scheunemann
Your biggest problem is her: Who she is, what she says, and how she says it.
I'll reserve further comments for a new post.
absolutely not... D-Fish has proven to me that he's a smart, well-intentioned dude. He comes across to me as a really good feller. WIth sufficient preparation and study, he might turn out to be a much better politician than point guard.
D-Fish 2016
I would have found it incredible that Palin really could be that ignorant, and would have guessed that some passing exchange was being willfully misinterpreted and blown out of proporition - a sarcastic remark or stray misstatement treated as though actually intended and representative of a state of knowledge. At one point, IIRC, she is supposed to have seemed to think that Africa was a "country." I thought it more likely, and still think it's possible, that she made a slip of the tongue during high-pressure debate preparations, or that some other exchange was turned by those hostile to her into something it really wasn't. Yet by now, after having seen her prove and prove again that her critics were justified in their suspicions of what she represented or would come to represent, I find the alternative view - in short, that she was and is kind of an idiot, in no way qualified for high office unless you presume that no office is worthy of respect - more persuasive.