Europeans At CLSA Hong Kong: “Sarah Palin was Brilliant” Sarah On Obama: Making The Poor Poorer

Citizen Palin 4 President ^

[paudio]

Palin’s potential rivals in the Republican primaries are sad...

[wny]

If the MSM ignores this, then she did splendidly. If she made any gaffes - or anything that could even be misrepresented as, or distorted into a gaffe - the MSMsluts would go 24/7 with it. She could give a 90 minute Churchillian speech and mispronounce one word, and what do you think would be shown on the networks?

[ontap]

I like her more and more as time goes by!!!

[euram]

Actually, the NY Times ran a very good article about the speech, and even the Huffington Post ran a good one as well written by someone who was actually at the event. I suspect that the speech itself will be released eventually so that the anti-Palin crowd can’t start distorting, and taking her comments out of context. A video would be great too.

[gov_bean_ counter]

In any event it will all be on her terms. Something that is driving the SRM crazy.

[presently no screen name]

In any event it will all be on her terms. Something that is driving the SRM crazy.

I just love that! She gets the truth out along w/a nice, badly needed, face slap to the media. Two birds w/one stone. Unconventional Sarah!

[GBA]

After obama, Reid and Pelosi, the country ought to be very hungry for some common sense and from what I've seen Sarah Palin apparently has a PhD. in common sense.

[Rummyfan]

[kanawa]

Sarah Palin apparently has a PhD. in common sense

Commonsense Revolution has begun.

[9YearLurker]

‘Making the poor poorer’ may be the best line I’ve heard on Obama.

[GBA]

Long overdue!

[Oztrich Boy]

. Sarah Palin, gave hundreds of financial big-hitters at the CLSA Investors' Forum in Hong Kong a wide-ranging speech that covered Alaska, international terrorism, US economic policy and trade with China.

Which will be the first media outlet to use the word "rambling"?

[RonDog]

Indexing RELATED threads:

VIDEO: Palin Touts "Main Street, U.S.A." In Hong Kong Speech
	09/23/2009 6:28:59 AM PDT · by ianschwartz · 13 replies · 444+ views Real Clear Politics ^ | September 23, 2009 | Real Clear Politics
WSJ: Palin Addresses Asian Investors
	09/23/2009 6:00:50 AM PDT · by SolidWood · 24 replies · 698+ views Wall Street Journal ^ | September 23, 2009 | JONATHAN CHENG and ALEX FRANGOS
Palin marks first ever visit to Asia with Hong Kong speech
	09/23/2009 5:45:35 AM PDT · by Ernest_at_the_Beach · 11 replies · 512+ views MarketWatch ^ | Sept. 23, 2009, 6:31 a.m. EDT | MarketWatch
Europeans At CLSA Hong Kong: “Sarah Palin was Brilliant” Sarah On Obama: Making The Poor Poorer
	09/23/2009 5:36:40 AM PDT · by MaxCUA · 12 replies · 560+ views Citizen Palin 4 President ^
Blame Big Government for Economic Meltdown: Palin
	09/23/2009 5:20:24 AM PDT · by Palin Republic · 21 replies · 808+ views NBC LA ^ | Sep 23, 2009 | Jonathan Cheng
Palin Speaks to Investors in Hong Kong
	09/23/2009 5:04:29 AM PDT · by Virginia Ridgerunner · 51 replies · 1,168+ views The New York Times ^ | September 23, 2009 | MARK McDONALD
Palin slams Obama's spending in debut speech in Asia
	09/23/2009 4:45:14 AM PDT · by rightwingintelligentsia · 14 replies · 955+ views Breitbart.com ^ | September 23, 2009
Palin emerges in Asia with speech to investors
	09/23/2009 1:48:39 AM PDT · by WVKayaker · 19 replies · 770+ views AP ^ | 9/23/2009 | JEREMIAH MARQUEZ

[RonDog]

Here are MORE links to reports about Governor Palin's recent speech in Hong Kong, from Drudge, posted by FReeper Ernest at the Beach:

To: All

From Drudge:

*************************************

Palin slams Obama's spending in debut Asian speech... [Breitbart.com]

Attacks Fed for Asset Bubbles... [Bloomberg]

Positioning herself as a libertarian? [New York Times]

'We're not interested in government fixes, we're interested in freedom'... [Wall Street Journal]

12 posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:52:42 AM by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Support Geert Wilders)

[rbmillerjr]

“Which will be the first media outlet to use the word “rambling”?”

They will have to lie to state that. All reportings are that it was well articulated and wide ranging.

There was a big financier and Obama supporter quoted in the NYSlimes article that stated she was labeled “not bright” but it was made clear that she was indeed, very bright.

[Nighttime in America]

Which will be the first media outlet to use the word "rambling"?

Nah, they used a different approach. An all-news radio station in DC this morning reported on the speech, then added, "She refused to say how much her fee was." What the hell does that have to do with anything? I wanted to spit on the radio.

[2ndDivisionVet]

See my tagline...

[FreeKeys]

"She refused to say how much her fee was." What the hell does that have to do with anything?

That's a variation of their "Who funded it?" smear -- as if getting paid invalidates what you have to say (yes, some people who are actually allowed to vote actually believe that)

I'm totally opposed to using taxpayer dollars to fund propaganda.  Private dollars?   None at all.  "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions  which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."  - Thomas Jefferson, 1779

---

Whether your arguments about a particular issue are valid or not does NOT logically depend on whether you are supported by issue advocates or partisans or not.  Your arguments are either valid or invalid, period.

The "Who funded it?" (or the "Who paid you?") Fallacy
by Rick Gaber

  People such as those at factcheck.org who are otherwise usually wise and thoughtful have expressed dismay, and even shock and horror, about whoever it was that financed the swift boat veterans against Kerry or the 527's against Bush as if their identities could serve as a reason to discount the message. 

    It reminds me of all the pundits and politicians who wanted to discount the Bush administration's energy plan or the Clinton administrations' healthcare federalization proposals based upon who participated in the secret meetings to formulate them rather than on the obvious horrors the plans themselves embodied.

    I have never understood why so many responsible people can fall for the well-known red herring fallacy of trashing a plan or an argument based on who funded it, or the ad hominem fallacy, attacking the people instead of  the ideas. These are basic, well-known logical fallacies, so their very use calls into question the users' motivations for employing them instead of addressing the ideas, information or arguments themselves. 

    If the initiators of an information-dissemination project are the producers of the funding, are we supposed to believe that the recipients of their money changed their views to get it?  Since finding experts who already share the producers' views is NOT difficult for competent people, I always think the accusers are projecting their own ethical failings and lack of principles onto their targets.  In other words, since THEY would change THEIR views if they were paid enough, they assume anyone else would.

    Those who know damn well they would never change their positions on a matter of principle, nomatter how much they're offered, have no problem imagining how others can be just like themselves.  Likewise, those who know damn well they would, not only have no problem imagining how others can be just like themselves, they often have psychological defense mechanisms against imagining how anyone else could actually stand on principle(!). Thus partisans on this issue are almost always the personal embodiments, the living manifestations, of their positions

    On the other hand, if the prime movers of an information-dissemination project are the ones with the information, rather than the ones with the financing, are we supposed to believe that honesty demands they finance their project by locating, and actually talking money out of, someone who disagrees with them, or who at least is indifferent?  Give me a break!  Rational people know damn well it would be natural for them to approach people whose viewpoints were similar and who might even become enthusiastic enough about the project to cough up some dough (duh).

    Or else are we supposed to assume that only commercials filmed on a shoestring can possibly be truthful (which would be based on yet another group of logical fallacies)? 

    Fundamentally, all these attacks are absurd.

    Arguments about issues should stick to the facts, as attacks on the people involved are not only irrelevant, but betray a lack of confidence on the parts of the attackers in their ability to persuade anyone on the basis of facts and logic.  Such attacks may even be a sign that they know damn well they're wrong.  Instead of accepting their charges at face value, I instantly suspect those who attack people -- instead of their arguments -- of fraud or incompetence (or both), and I encourage you to do the same.

---

"It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic." -- Thomas Sowell, HERE

"Policy advocates who cannot understand, or are unwilling to believe, that holders of opposing viewpoints can do so for good reasons and virtuous motives, have usually NOT done enough of their OWN homework on all the relevant aspects of the issue at hand.  Sometimes they even have really stupid reasons or malevolent motives for their own viewpoints as well." -- Bert Rand

"A person who indulges in ad hominem attacks instead of addressing another's ideas, has in effect conceded intellectual defeat."-- Bevin Chu, antiwar.com, Oct. 22, 1999

 "When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser."
-- Socrates

"It's far easier to support people who agree with you than to bribe people to do your bidding." --  Brian Doherty, ReasonOnline, May 6, 2003.

"When you don't want to assess whether an attack is true or false, just say that asking the question is crappy politics." 
-- Tim Graham, NRO, Aug. 11, 2004

"Research shows that while people underestimate the influence of self-interest on their own judgments and decisions, they overestimate its influence on others." -- Daniel Gilbert, PhD

 “The conspiracy theory is the bastion of shadows and little or no evidence. It explains a famous or known event by appealing to the leftist dictum of  'follow the money' or 'look who benefits' as if actual evidence is irrelevant and personal ethics are just a farcical way for the rich and powerful to pull the wool over the eyes of everyone else.” -- Alexander Marriott

"Those who insist on 'following the money' ALWAYS imply that EVERYONE takes a position on something based upon whether he is paid or not.  Guess what THAT means about THEM -- they who work so hard to avoid discussing the existence of people who act on principle alone?  Go ahead, guess!  I DARE YOU!" -- Bert Rand

---

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock." 
-- Thomas Jefferson

---

Also see: 
Kneejerk Objection No. 8b
Responses to charges of "extremism"
and:  About Campaign Finance "reform"

"Observe, first of all, that in equating unselfishness with morality, the implication is that self-interested actions are either immoral or nonmoral. ... This doctrine takes for granted as self-evident a clash between self-interest and morality: We can pursue our self-interest or we can be moral, but we can't be both. ... In this doctrine, selfishness is presumed to be narrow, petty, small-minded, materialistic, immature, narcissistic, anti-social, exploitative, mean-spirited, arrogant, ruthless, indifferent, cruel, and potentially murderous. These traits are evidently regarded as being to one's self-interest, since they are labeled as expressions of selfishness. It is interesting to speculate about the psychology of those who believe this." -- Dr. Nathaniel Branden, here

"Instead of addressing the point at issue -- whether Presidential candidate John Kerry is a serial liar -- the Times devoted its vast investigative resources to digging up dirt on the Swift Boat Vets, and came to this blockbuster conclusion: some of the people supporting the Vets are Republicans! Tomorrow, we'll expect to see a similar investigation of Americans Coming Together and MoveOn.org. What do you want to bet some of their contributors are Democrats? I'll bet some of them have even met people who have served in Democratic administrations. What an exposé!" -- John Hinderaker, here.

"I have been mildly amused to watch the Bush-hating left's reaction to the Swift Vet's story. First it was shock. Then it was angry denunciation and ridicule. ... The latest attempt has been by the increasingly laughingstock New York Times, which today finally broke its silence on the story with the shocking, stunning revelation that some of the Swift Boat Vets for Truth have long hated John Kerry (oooh! aaaah!) and that after the Democratic Convention was over, some big-money Republicans gave them money to fund an ad. ... Which anyone who's actually read the Swift Boat Vets for Truth web site already knows." -- Dean Esmay, here.

Did YOU know that people who give money to Republican causes tend to be Republicans?
That people who give to Democratic causes tend to be Democrats?  That fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests???  Aren't you shocked, SHOCKED?????

"Occam's Razor": translated variously as "What can be explained on fewer principles is explained needlessly by more," "What can be done with fewer assumptions is done in vain with more," "The simplest explanation is usually the right explanation," and "Occam's Razor [is] the scientific principle that explanations should be concise and literal."-- Robert Hessen.  Actually, what William of Ockham (1288-1347) wrote was in Latin, "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate," or "plurality should not be posited without necessity."

---

"'So and so is only saying that because he was paid to say that' is usually NOT the simplest explanation for someone's political advocacy except in reference to a politician advancing a local interest from his own constituency.  The simplest explanation for any other political advocacy is that, if someone is paying to support it, it's because he's found an advocate who already passionately agrees with him.  The simplest explanation for FOCUSING on whether someone is paid or not is usually a sign of an inability to counter his arguments." -- Rick Gaber

Now, if any "who paid you?" fallacy is at all valid, consider this:
"Too many voters are already bought -- not by corporate campaign donors, but by the government itself." -- Joseph Sobran.
"The government is the biggest special-interest group there is." -- Randy Richards

Click for an 8 1/2 x 11 size to print out.

HOME