Now I Understand…The Liberals Perception Is Lacking, or Missing
Posted: Friday, June 17, 2011
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
I’m past the average lifetime of American males, and I have witnessed quite a lot of things in these 80+ years. And I have wondered a lot of times why some people act the way they do. I’ve known men who would kill you if you kicked their dog. I’ve even watched a big, mean ugly man curse his wife so raucously that spit was spraying from his mouth, yet she stood toe to toe with him and railed ugly language back at him until I thought they might kill each other…honestly. I was just a kid, so I left there. I decided right then and there that I would never be fool enough to think I could scare a woman. They aren’t afraid of you.
I read some comments about her back in 2008, and because of a lack of substance against her, the participants were belittling her because of her pregnant daughter! It takes a pretty sorry person to ridicule a lady whose only bad(?) point is having an unmarried pregnant daughter. They criticized her manner of speaking, which was quite good rather than a point to criticize. No one could possibly criticize her appearance, she was always beautiful, tastefully dressed, immaculate and smiling. To tell the truth, there was absolutely nothing to criticize her for. She was running as the vice presidential candidate alongside John McCain.
They criticized her for her manner of speech, like saying. “You betcha”. Is that a bad word? Is that half as bad as those used by those in the comments I referred to. Those fellows were ridiculing the daughter (and thereby her mother for running for public office with a daughter like her) so doggedly, I could not keep myself from responding to them. I wrote, “I presume by the remarks you fellows are making that you were all virgins when you married“. One had the gall to respond to that with a really GREAT excuse, “No, but we aren’t running for public office.” I could not respond to such a wonderfully honest remark.
But this good Christian lady with high morals and ethics, and proved it while she served as a Mayor and then a Governor, even tackling corruption in her own party. But things have happened since 2008. She has become more accustomed to the lies and false accusations thrown at her and she has now become an accomplished speaker and could, if put in the place for one, handle herself well in a debate. The vast majority of individuals who are running for office have much more skeletons in their closets than this lady. The media keeps their eye on her like a hawk.
Very recently, the state of Alaska released 24,000 of her emails which were written during her term as governor of Alaska. The media assigned special people to go over those things with a fine toothed comb and to find any speck of misconduct or any incriminating words, poor language or anything they could use. I strongly doubt that you could have found ANY other politician and been unable to find anything against them within 24,000 email documents. They are online, find them and read as many as you like. The worst thing they could find to criticize was they were dull…unexciting. To translate that into English it amounts to that fact that they could find absolutely nothing to criticize. Out of 24,000!
Now for the real kicker. Some had said she was not intelligent enough to be Vice President, others criticized here knowledge, etc. Well, let’s just do a little comparison. A component of AOL.com, “AOL Weird News” (liberals all) had a sampling of her writing analyzed to see how well she wrote, hoping to show how lacking she was in intelligence. The results, compared to some others by the same standard Flesch-Kincaid readability test, shows she is well up in the high echelon. Check these:
Sarah Palin: 8.5 (Even AOL admitted it was an excellent rating for a chief executive)
Martin Luther King: (I have a dream speech) 8.8
Abe Lincoln: (Gettysburg Address) 9.1
George H.W. Bush: (State of the Union) 8.6
Bill Clinton: (State of the Union) 9.5
George W. Bush: (State of the Union) 10.4
Ronald Reagan: *(State of the Union) 10.3
Barack Obama: (His victory speech -The great orator) 7.4
Some numbers just speak for themselves. (Jim Robbins: The Robbins Report)
So, you see, to quote a saying of my favorite orator, Ronald Reagan: “It is not that the Liberals are ignorant, it is just that they know so much that isn’t so!”
This Article has been viewed 427 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)Amen! One of the great recent mysteries of the world to me is the hatred liberals have for her and it seems they have even created fear of her within the GOP to a certain extent. The great question is why. I can only come up with two things: (1) My wife says she did not abort her Down Syndrome baby angering the left. Who knows, that could be part of it. (2) She hit the ball out of the park with her acceptance speech at the GOP 2008 convention. Probably not been a political speech that powerful since Reagan which, if so, scared the left to death. There is just no reasonable explanation for such hatred. Who would desire to be with a political party that has such hate?Hi Denny, thanks for the comment. I think it is fear more than anything else. They've learned that enough lies and criticisms will eventually frighten some of her followers. They falsified so much against George Bush that they actually did turn many against him. Bush made some mistakes, but things were very good under his administration until the Congress changed to a Democratic majority. The mess all started after that. The economy was gaining ground until the two wars (justified) began costing so much.
If it wasn’t for the fact this is how totally ridiculous rumors get started, your article would be rather amusing.
Suggesting e-mails written by Sarah Palin have a higher Flesch-Kincaid readability index than President Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can" speech borders on super funny.
It’s obvious someone is pulling your leg as I just ran the test on President Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can" acceptance speech of November 2008 and the speech has an overall rating of 10.0, with an automated readability index of 10.6.
Where Sarah Palin’s e-mails were written to be understood by the average 8th grader, President Obama’s speech has a readability index geared towards those with a 10th grade education and if I recall correctly, the readability index of the average U.S. voter is at the 10th grade level. I haven’t bothered to check on the other scores indicated in your article because they’re not of interest to me, but you definitely caught my attention suggesting Palin’s score was higher than our current President’s.
I’m sure I don’t have to mention that President Obama’s score of 10.0/10.6 is also considerably higher than anyone else listed in your article.
Had you read the complete AOL Weird News article on this subject you would have noted the two ‘experts’ used a very small sampling of one paragraph e-mails from Palin for their testing and while one test score came in at 8.5, the second was only 8.2, which puts her pretty close to the bottom of the pile – if not at the bottom.
On October 27, 1964 Ronald Reagan gave the speech “A Time for Choosing" and it consisted of 4,602 words. The quote “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." was taken from this particular speech. I’m surprised that out of all the things Reagan said in this particular speech that’s the one line that was quoted.
Perhaps in 1964 it was possible for someone to make the statement that liberals ‘know so much that isn’t so’, but it’s certainly quite the opposite in 2011. I’ll use your article as a simple example; there is no basis for the statement you are making about the most important speech our current president made.
I certainly can’t fault you for writing what you 'believe'. Unfortunately, the majority of people out there are too quick to write what they want to believe instead of taking the time to confirm their statements and it’s unfortunate because how many people will read your article and actually think it’s fact?
I don’t think links are to be included in comments, but if you wish to verify my test results both the text of the “Yes We Can" speech and the Flesch-Kincaid test can be located on the internet so you can check it out yourself, or you may send me an e-mail and I’ll be happy to forward the links to you.
Even though I absolutely cannot agree with your conclusion, I most definitely enjoyed reading your article because it really did make me smile.
Pat JohnsonPat, thank you for reading and commenting on my article, I appreciate it. I can't understand why you refuse to accept the figures as I gave them. I found multiple websites showing these figures. The particular one I referred to above was the Robbins Report, but if you put "Yes We Can Flesch-Kincaid" into a Google search window, you'll find a slew of websites with the same figures. I don't find it as important as some since I have all ideas that Obama had help in composing that speech anyway.
Nevertheless, regardless of whose writings scored higher, I choose Pailin's philosophy over that of Obama's any day. She is not my favorite candidate but I think it is downright crude for people to blast her when they have nothing to blast about.Good Morning Joel and Happy Father’s Day.
The reason I’m disputing the figures in your article on President Obama is simply because the figure is incorrect.
I agree with you 100%, there are numerous websites on the internet claiming these same figures and in most instances they are simply nothing more than anti-Obama sites who look for derogatory items to post. If you look at them you’ll note the same exact thing is posted over and over again. Just because it’s posted on the interest does not mean it’s a fact. Remember WMD’s in Iraq?
I reviewed several of the sites indicating this particular data and they are not what I consider “legitimate" sites, they all fall into the category of anti-Obama type sites.
I’m not familiar with anything called the “Robbins Report", other than the education report published by the British Government back in 1963. It was called the Robbins Report because it was chaired by Lord Robbins.
Even though I’m not familiar with anything called the Robbins Report, I searched the internet and wasn’t able to locate the actual report to confirm or deny, but what I do know – for a fact – is the number indicated is incorrect no matter where it came from. If you want to give me a link to the Robbins Report I’ll be more than happy to research further.
Please understand that this isn’t about Obama and/or Palin’s philosophy on anything – it’s about one number being reported that is simply incorrect.
As far as picking on Palin - as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t often happen enough. This woman single-handedly caused an excellent benefit for our Senior citizens to be removed from a health care bill because she made the following statement:
"Palin, Aug. 7: The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care."
Her “death panel" nonsense was ignorance personified, yet she had our Senior citizens believing the government was actually going to “pull the plug on grandma".
The entire purpose of this House bill was to provide Senior citizens with the opportunity to seek consultations, and be reimbursed by Medicare, about end-of-life care, wills, hospice availability, etc. The purpose was to educate our seniors so they could make their own ‘educated’ decisions on the end-of-life care they wanted.
If I picked a favorite Republican candidate at this stage in the game it would have to be Jon Huntsman, the former Ambassador to China and former Governor of Arizona.
Thank you for your comment.
Pat Johnson
Joel, I can't figure out where the following came from to respond to it, so I'll respond here - fortunately I made a copy of your comment before I replied to it.
From you to me -- Subject: Palin/Obama readability tests Message: Hi Patricia, I’m embarrassed, but I can’t even find the Robbins Report article again. I had chased a link when I found it on Friday, now I can’t find it. But it was by Jim Robbins who writes for the Washington Times occasionally. Here is another one with about the same information. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread717791/pg1 I chose to credit Robbins article because it had the list which I copied into my article. But, not to worry, you and I are as far apart philosophically as we can get I guess. I was raised in a strongly Democratic family and I thought they were right. But the party hierarchy has become so far out with their platform and philosophy, I’ll never vote for one again. You seem to be a very intelligent and decent person so I don’t see how you can affiliate with such a crew. But, I’m very glad that you have the right to be wrong. :o) Have a nice day and enjoy your president and senate while you still can. Joel Hendon
From me to you :) Joel, The link you provided above simply says “And then there’s this from the Robbins Report", with no corresponding link. The data that immediately follows the statement is not being quoted from "The Robbins Report", it’s quoted from another source, and once again, quoted incorrectly. I checked out another site that is basically saying it’s quoting from the Washington Times, when in fact, the quote is from an individual that was commenting on a Washington Times article. You can chose to credit whoever you want in an article, but I would think anyone that writes anything of substance would want to check their resources for accuracy. I’m not sure what you are basing the statement “you and I are as far apart philosophically as we can get" since we aren’t discussing philosophies, were discussing article inaccuracies. Again, I’m not sure I comprehend the point you’re attempting to make in the comment “I don’t see how you can affiliate with such a crew". I don’t affiliate myself with any political party or platform; I’m an Independent and vote accordingly. As far as affiliating myself with a platform, if there is one I would choose it would be Facts over Fiction when it comes to reporting. Whenever you come across the actual data indicated in your article, please forward as I'm 100% positive it simply does not exist except in the minds of those that rely on misinformation to make a point. Have a good day, Pat JohnsonO.k., I've learned that Robbins and Robbins Report runs in the Washingon Times. I'll see if I can find the archived report in question.Joel, Since the article you quoted was not written until after your June 17, 2011 article, we still need the Robbins Report in question.Patricia, I finally located the article. I can't enter the URL here, but simply paste this into Google and you'll quickley find it. "Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives, Just Ask Them"
You might want to straighten Robbins out.
The James S. Robbins article “Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives, Just Ask Them" was not even published until June 24, 2011 (well after you wrote your June 17, 2011 article) and has absolutely nothing to do with Sarah Palin, Barack Obama and/or their readability levels per the Flesch-Kincaid readability index.
The article you referenced has to do with a comment Jon Stewart made to Chris Wallace regarding the December 20, 2010 press release from University of Maryland. This PR was based on the poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org which indicated the extent voters were misinformed on key issues prior to the election. This poll indicated that voters that watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely to be misinformed. The study was funded by the Calvert Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
The WorldPublicOpinion.org report was published December 10, 2010 as “Misinformation and the 2010 Election, A Study of the US Electorate".
I have no desire to straighten out James Robbins or anyone else since it is a free country and anywhere can write and/or believe whatever they choose. It’s a different scenario when someone writes directly to me and makes a statement, then I feel obligated to review and correct their statements.
This article reads as a hate filled diatribe. Maybe the Jesus this author claims to follow just isn't doing the trick for him.
Joel writes: "But this good Christian lady with high morals and ethics, and proved it while she served as a Mayor and then a Governor, even tackling corruption in her own party."
My reply: "On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing, the Branchflower Report, in which investigator Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan 'was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority,' but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten. The report stated that 'Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired.' The report also said that Palin 'permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office ... to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired.'"
Later that day, Palin summoned a press conference and proclaimed to the reporters, "Well, I’m very, very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing... Any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that." Of course this was dishonest, because Palin was NOT cleared of any unethical behavior. She cleared herself in her own mind, which seems to be a consistent theme with self righteous ultra conservatives. If she can convince herself she did nothing wrong, well then, everybody else must share in her self deception.
When I read the title of this article, I couldn't help but think you were really talking about yourself.
Palin abused her position of authority to exact personal revenge by ruining the career of a man she had it in for. Exactly what constitutes a 'good Christian' seems to be a moving target, conditional on whether that person shares your political viewpoint.
Thank you, and have a good day.Good Morning Moses,
I don’t think Joel intended his article and/or comments to be ‘hate filled’, I think it’s more of a situation where he just feels very strongly about a particular candidate and how he ‘perceives’ her being treated by the media.
Former Governor Palin comes across to me as a very revengeful person and I get the impression she would definitely bend the rules to get whatever she wants done, but that’s just my opinion.
Not sure what exactly does constitute a ‘good Christian’. Seems to me the more people talk about being Christians, the less they seem to follow the basics, but that’s just another opinion.
Thank you for your comment and Happy 4th of July
Pat Johnson
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.