JohnRgt

Palin Spells Out Iran Nuke Policy

43 posts in this topic

She made me chuckle near the end, because while she first says, "John McCain and I . . . ", and then, "We will not waver . . . ", the last thing she says is, "I will continue . . . ".

I know that doesn't signify anything in itself, but it makes me laugh because it fits with my belief and prediction that when McCain is done with the office of the Presidency (he will win this election), Palin is going to be the next President. And I would be surprised if she isn't looking at things that way as well.

I cannot, however, have much respect for any person who is apparently too lazy to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly. I sincerely hold that against her as a mark of ignorance and stupidity. Same goes for Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama has stated the same exact things Palin has about Iran's nuclear policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She made me chuckle near the end, because while she first says, "John McCain and I . . . ", and then, "We will not waver . . . ", the last thing she says is, "I will continue . . . ".

I know that doesn't signify anything in itself, but it makes me laugh because it fits with my belief and prediction that when McCain is done with the office of the Presidency (he will win this election), Palin is going to be the next President. And I would be surprised if she isn't looking at things that way as well.

I cannot, however, have much respect for any person who is apparently too lazy to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly. I sincerely hold that against her as a mark of ignorance and stupidity. Same goes for Bush.

From the Merriam Webster online dictionary under nuclear:

Usage: Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \\-kyə-lər\\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president. While most common in the United States, these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot, however, have much respect for any person who is apparently too lazy to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly. I sincerely hold that against her as a mark of ignorance and stupidity. Same goes for Bush.

How is using a common alternate pronunciation "lazy", "ignorant" and "stupid", how did you deduce such a sweeping claim, why did you choose to focus on it, and what difference does pronunciation of a word make to the obviously more important criterion for the election?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has stated the same exact things Palin has about Iran's nuclear policy.

Where and when? Where did Palin say she would negotiate with Iran without condition? Where did Palin say she refused to appear at the anti-Iran nuclear rally that the Democrats refused to attend because Palin had accepted the invitation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot, however, have much respect for any person who is apparently too lazy to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly. I sincerely hold that against her as a mark of ignorance and stupidity. Same goes for Bush.

How is using a common alternate pronunciation "lazy", "ignorant" and "stupid", how did you deduce such a sweeping claim, why did you choose to focus on it, and what difference does pronunciation of a word make to the obviously more important criterion for the election?

I agree with Ayn Rand's criterion for choosing a candidate as expressed in her article "Check Your Premises: How to Judge a Political Candidate" in The Objectivist Newsletter, March 1964. She did not include pronunciation.

It is the basic—and, today, the only—issue by which a candidate must be judged: freedom vs. statism.

If a candidate evades, equivocates and hides his stand under a junk-heap of random concretes, we must add up those concretes and judge him accordingly. If his stand is mixed, we must evaluate it by asking: Will he protect freedom or destroy the last of it? Will he accelerate, delay or stop the march toward statism?

At the time she wrote that, Barry Goldwater was running against Lyndon Johnson. Today both candidates are worse than their counterparts then, but the same principle holds as long as it can be meaningfully applied.

Granted that "nuclear" is still the preferred pronunciation; and I remember first learning it as "nucular" in high school chemistry, where I eventually realized the error and corrected it. I still react against "nucular" today even though it seems to be gaining in common usage. But more important, I have noticed that over-"educated" liberal, political elitist snobs in the northeast become obsessed with the pronunciation of "nucular" by George Bush as they look down their noses at such "cowboys" as beneath them in every respect. His consistent, unwavering use of "nucular" drives them up the wall in the rarified air of their supposedly superior indignation. This has become so widespread and the background "controversy" over "nuclear" vs. "nucular" so well known now that I can't imagine that George Bush and others aren't aware of it. I have to wonder if they now knowingly use "nucular" just to defy them as a minor, unmentioned side issue in the background. If it keeps some of the sanctimonious leftists busy railing against non-essentials and exposing how snooty and contemptuous of ordinary Americans they are for all the wrong reasons, then that alone is worth it. Let's build some more "fuslar" bombs for potential use against Iran's threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot, however, have much respect for any person who is apparently too lazy to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly. I sincerely hold that against her as a mark of ignorance and stupidity. Same goes for Bush.

How is using a common alternate pronunciation "lazy", "ignorant" and "stupid", how did you deduce such a sweeping claim, why did you choose to focus on it, and what difference does pronunciation of a word make to the obviously more important criterion for the election?

Merely expressing my dissatisfaction with people who mis-pronounce that word, EWV. Not pinning my entire political evaluation of the candidates on that single point, nor trying to sway others to vote one way or another based solely upon it. Call it a "pet peeve" of mine that I was simply voicing.

I think there is no excuse for a person who is the POTUS or who aspires to be the POTUS to mis-pronounce that particular word, given its common usage (especially in the context of their job). That there is a dictionary which cites it as a "common alternate pronunciation" does not validate it as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps someday it will become generally acceptable, but that day isn't here for me yet.

I hate it! :) So there. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has stated the same exact things Palin has about Iran's nuclear policy.

The difference is that Obama will say anything, so you're never certain what he believes. Sarah Palin is clear as glass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot, however, have much respect for any person who is apparently too lazy to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly. I sincerely hold that against her as a mark of ignorance and stupidity. Same goes for Bush.

How is using a common alternate pronunciation "lazy", "ignorant" and "stupid", how did you deduce such a sweeping claim, why did you choose to focus on it, and what difference does pronunciation of a word make to the obviously more important criterion for the election?

Merely expressing my dissatisfaction with people who mis-pronounce that word, EWV. Not pinning my entire political evaluation of the candidates on that single point, nor trying to sway others to vote one way or another based solely upon it. Call it a "pet peeve" of mine that I was simply voicing.

I think there is no excuse for a person who is the POTUS or who aspires to be the POTUS to mis-pronounce that particular word, given its common usage (especially in the context of their job). That there is a dictionary which cites it as a "common alternate pronunciation" does not validate it as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps someday it will become generally acceptable, but that day isn't here for me yet.

I hate it! :) So there. :)

And these personal prejudices are supposed to make someone "lazy, stupid and ignorant" -- now redefined to mean "merely expression dissatisfaction"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot, however, have much respect for any person who is apparently too lazy to pronounce the word "nuclear" properly. I sincerely hold that against her as a mark of ignorance and stupidity. Same goes for Bush.

How is using a common alternate pronunciation "lazy", "ignorant" and "stupid", how did you deduce such a sweeping claim, why did you choose to focus on it, and what difference does pronunciation of a word make to the obviously more important criterion for the election?

I agree with Ayn Rand's criterion for choosing a candidate as expressed in her article "Check Your Premises: How to Judge a Political Candidate" in The Objectivist Newsletter, March 1964. She did not include pronunciation.

It is the basic—and, today, the only—issue by which a candidate must be judged: freedom vs. statism.

If a candidate evades, equivocates and hides his stand under a junk-heap of random concretes, we must add up those concretes and judge him accordingly. If his stand is mixed, we must evaluate it by asking: Will he protect freedom or destroy the last of it? Will he accelerate, delay or stop the march toward statism?

At the time she wrote that, Barry Goldwater was running against Lyndon Johnson. Today both candidates are worse than their counterparts then, but the same principle holds as long as it can be meaningfully applied.

Granted that "nuclear" is still the preferred pronunciation; and I remember first learning it as "nucular" in high school chemistry, where I eventually realized the error and corrected it. I still react against "nucular" today even though it seems to be gaining in common usage. But more important, I have noticed that over-"educated" liberal, political elitist snobs in the northeast become obsessed with the pronunciation of "nucular" by George Bush as they look down their noses at such "cowboys" as beneath them in every respect. His consistent, unwavering use of "nucular" drives them up the wall in the rarified air of their supposedly superior indignation. This has become so widespread and the background "controversy" over "nuclear" vs. "nucular" so well known now that I can't imagine that George Bush and others aren't aware of it. I have to wonder if they now knowingly use "nucular" just to defy them as a minor, unmentioned side issue in the background. If it keeps some of the sanctimonious leftists busy railing against non-essentials and exposing how snooty and contemptuous of ordinary Americans they are for all the wrong reasons, then that alone is worth it. Let's build some more "fuslar" bombs for potential use against Iran's threat.

Agreed. Glad to see that we are not distracted by such things. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't get any clearer than

"Nucular weapons"? "Second Holocaust"?

There is a little bad pronunciation and pandering there, but overall I agree with her sentiment. Sarah is a corker, alright. She and her running mate are preferable to Barak and Biden.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Nucular weapons"? "Second Holocaust"?

There is a little bad pronunciation and pandering there, but overall I agree with her sentiment.

I don't think referring to a "Second Holocaust" is pandering at all. The first thing that Iran is likely to do if they get a bomb is nuke Tel Aviv.

Also, I believe Sarah Palin's support for Israel is based on an understanding that they are the Good Guys. I have heard that she has three flags in her office: a US flag, and Alaska flag, and an Israeli flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's distracting when a prominent person mispronounces the word "nuclear" as "newkular," and doesn't reflect well on the speaker.

And it is a mispronunciation. Just look at the word "nuclear" and sound it out, (like they taught us when I was in first grade). The letters don't come in the order that would be needed to get "newkular."

Arguing that what we have here is a legitimate alternative pronunciation is similar to arguing that an alternative pronunciation for the word "ask" is "ax". I've heard that, and it's wrong too - also a swapping of the order of two sounds.

It's distracting because it's obviously wrong and easily corrected, yet the speaker uses the incorrect version anyway. Why? She has friends and family who could point out the error, I suppose. Why continue to make the mistake? Doesn't care? Doesn't know? Doing it deliberately in order to bait her enemies? (I hope not!) I don't know, but it would be easy to fix if she cared to.

....

Using proper grammar, spelling and pronunciation is important in communication. Not doing so suggests to me that the communicator is either ignorant, lazy, lacks respect for his listeners, or is anti-intellectual (doesn't take ideas seriously). So the person's message gets mixed in with the distraction of easily corrected mistakes. "Why is he doing this?", I wonder.

I compare the present case with what happens when somebody posts a message on an internet forum that is full of spelling and grammar mistakes. (Maybe he even ignores punctuation and capitalization; I've seen that.) What does it say about the person who wrote it? What it says to me is that he's too lazy to take the trouble to do it right (or mabye it's his perverse way of trying to appear "cool"), and it's distracting if I then try to follow his arguments. In cases like this, my tendency is to ignore further communications from this person until I have evidence he's corrected his ways.

Correct pronunciation is something one should take pride in. Pronouncing words incorrectly is something that people will notice, and it will justifiably make a negative impression on quite a few of us. This isn't the most important consideration in deciding how to vote, but there's no excuse for a presidential candidate making such an easily-corrected mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama has stated the same exact things Palin has about Iran's nuclear policy.

Where and when? Where did Palin say she would negotiate with Iran without condition? Where did Palin say she refused to appear at the anti-Iran nuclear rally that the Democrats refused to attend because Palin had accepted the invitation?

Palin hasn't said that.

Obama has stated that if Iran was actually going after nuclear weapons, he would NOT negotiate. It would be a " deal changer ". ( The first part of the Bill O'Reilly interview which can be found on youtube ) I think his problem is lack of intelligence on the matter, which may change when he becomes President.

I don't think McCain and Palin are going to go at Iran anymore than I think Obama will, quite honestly. I don't think anyone will do anything about it. Bush has talked a good game, but what has he done? Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's distracting when a prominent person mispronounces the word "nuclear" as "newkular," and doesn't reflect well on the speaker.

And it is a mispronunciation. Just look at the word "nuclear" and sound it out, (like they taught us when I was in first grade). The letters don't come in the order that would be needed to get "newkular."

Arguing that what we have here is a legitimate alternative pronunciation is similar to arguing that an alternative pronunciation for the word "ask" is "ax". I've heard that, and it's wrong too - also a swapping of the order of two sounds.

It's distracting because it's obviously wrong and easily corrected, yet the speaker uses the incorrect version anyway. Why? She has friends and family who could point out the error, I suppose. Why continue to make the mistake? Doesn't care? Doesn't know? Doing it deliberately in order to bait her enemies? (I hope not!) I don't know, but it would be easy to fix if she cared to.

....

Using proper grammar, spelling and pronunciation is important in communication. Not doing so suggests to me that the communicator is either ignorant, lazy, lacks respect for his listeners, or is anti-intellectual (doesn't take ideas seriously). So the person's message gets mixed in with the distraction of easily corrected mistakes. "Why is he doing this?", I wonder.

I compare the present case with what happens when somebody posts a message on an internet forum that is full of spelling and grammar mistakes. (Maybe he even ignores punctuation and capitalization; I've seen that.) What does it say about the person who wrote it? What it says to me is that he's too lazy to take the trouble to do it right (or mabye it's his perverse way of trying to appear "cool"), and it's distracting if I then try to follow his arguments. In cases like this, my tendency is to ignore further communications from this person until I have evidence he's corrected his ways.

Correct pronunciation is something one should take pride in. Pronouncing words incorrectly is something that people will notice, and it will justifiably make a negative impression on quite a few of us. This isn't the most important consideration in deciding how to vote, but there's no excuse for a presidential candidate making such an easily-corrected mistake.

Very nicely put Jay! I stand with you on the ramparts of correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, and pronunciation. They, and much of what they represent, are hallmarks of a civilized society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's distracting when a prominent person mispronounces the word "nuclear" as "newkular," and doesn't reflect well on the speaker.

. . .

Correct pronunciation is something one should take pride in. Pronouncing words incorrectly is something that people will notice, and it will justifiably make a negative impression on quite a few of us. This isn't the most important consideration in deciding how to vote, but there's no excuse for a presidential candidate making such an easily-corrected mistake.

Thank-you, Jay P., for that thoughtful, well-reasoned explanation of why (among other things) properly pronouncing "nuclear" matters; an explanation which I was too lazy to compose myself. I was just going to drop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's distracting when a prominent person mispronounces the word "nuclear" as "newkular," and doesn't reflect well on the speaker.

. . .

Correct pronunciation is something one should take pride in. Pronouncing words incorrectly is something that people will notice, and it will justifiably make a negative impression on quite a few of us. This isn't the most important consideration in deciding how to vote, but there's no excuse for a presidential candidate making such an easily-corrected mistake.

Thank-you, Jay P., for that thoughtful, well-reasoned explanation of why (among other things) properly pronouncing "nuclear" matters; an explanation which I was too lazy to compose myself. I was just going to drop it.

You lazy, good for nothing, SOB. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree that people should strive to speak well, especially in public. I do cringe when Palin says "Eye-ran" and "nucular," but it doesn't make her less qualified for the position of Vice President because of it.

I consider mispronunciation in this context to be an annoyance, but not essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully agree that people should strive to speak well, especially in public. I do cringe when Palin says "Eye-ran" and "nucular," but it doesn't make her less qualified for the position of Vice President because of it.

I consider mispronunciation in this context to be an annoyance, but not essential.

More seriously, absolutely. Palin rocks! Finally someone who will actually and seriously protect life in the White House! Bush should have, but didn't. I am told by some close associates that Palin is very very different. Cant wait until next year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Eye-ran" - Isn't it interesting how many Americans, with a language rich in borrowings and adaptations, are so much more concerned, in general, than other countries with the proper pronunciation of the proper name of a foreign country. The English, the French, the Romans before them, just renamed it or called it whatever was comfortable and convenient. Would "Persia" be better? I work hard, myself, to pronounce foreign names correctly, out of respect for the individuals and those foreign languages I worked hard to learn. But, unless they ask me, I don't inflict that discipline on others. I consider Palin's pronunciation to be, essentially, an accent and not worthy of condemnation. Some people have a good ear for pronunciation and some don't. I've known very intelligent people who've spent years learning a language and still sound like tourists. And I've worked hard, having learned the correct pronunciation of word, such as "sashimi," for example (no stress on "shi" as most Americans pronounce it), only to have to repeat myself several times to the waiter, who then says oh, "saSHImi!"

As for "nucular"... yeah, that's pretty quaint. Essentially dyslexic. Jimmie Carter (I hate to bring up such a crummy example, but he's right for the job, for once in his pathetic life) pronounced it "nucular" and he was a "nucular" engineer. Well, I won't vouch for his intelligence, but the word has been mispronounced by many besides Carter and GW Bush on a regular basis. I think Palin deserves a ribbing for it, but not an IQ assessment -- it's an invalid extrapolation. Maybe if Palin really did "spell out [her] Iran Nu[c-l-e-a-r] Policy," she would realize that she's transposed two letters. Whatever. It's a slim justification for judging the intelligence of an individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully agree that people should strive to speak well, especially in public. I do cringe when Palin says "Eye-ran" and "nucular," but it doesn't make her less qualified for the position of Vice President because of it.

I consider mispronunciation in this context to be an annoyance, but not essential.

More seriously, absolutely. Palin rocks! Finally someone who will actually and seriously protect life in the White House! Bush should have, but didn't. I am told by some close associates that Palin is very very different. Cant wait until next year!

Is Palin (or any other politician) going to protect your life? Isn't that the most important question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Eye-ran" - Isn't it interesting how many Americans, with a language rich in borrowings and adaptations, are so much more concerned, in general, than other countries with the proper pronunciation of the proper name of a foreign country. The English, the French, the Romans before them, just renamed it or called it whatever was comfortable and convenient. Would "Persia" be better? I work hard, myself, to pronounce foreign names correctly, out of respect for the individuals and those foreign languages I worked hard to learn. But, unless they ask me, I don't inflict that discipline on others. I consider Palin's pronunciation to be, essentially, an accent and not worthy of condemnation. Some people have a good ear for pronunciation and some don't. I've known very intelligent people who've spent years learning a language and still sound like tourists. And I've worked hard, having learned the correct pronunciation of a word, such as "sashimi," for example (no stress on "shi" as most Americans pronounce it), only to have to repeat myself several times to the waiter, who then says "oh, saSHImi!"

As for "nucular"... yeah, that's pretty quaint. Essentially dyslexic. Jimmie Carter (I hate to bring up such a crummy example, but he's right for the job, for once in his pathetic life) pronounced it "nucular" and he was a "nucular" engineer. Well, I won't vouch for his intelligence, but the word has been mispronounced by many besides Carter and GW Bush on a regular basis. I think Palin deserves a ribbing for it, but not an IQ assessment -- it's an invalid extrapolation. Maybe if Palin really did "spell out [her] Iran Nu[c-l-e-a-r] Policy," she would realize that she's transposed two letters. Whatever. It's a slim justification for judging the intelligence of an individual.

Exactly. I have heard many different pronunciations of words when traveling to different parts of the country. I never think that it reflects on the intelligence of the speaker. I have also known people who have admirable speaking voices, but who do not know how to spell. However, they do know how to lead successful and happy lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I fully agree that people should strive to speak well, especially in public. I do cringe when Palin says "Eye-ran" and "nucular," but it doesn't make her less qualified for the position of Vice President because of it.

I consider mispronunciation in this context to be an annoyance, but not essential.

More seriously, absolutely. Palin rocks! Finally someone who will actually and seriously protect life in the White House! Bush should have, but didn't. I am told by some close associates that Palin is very very different. Cant wait until next year!

Is Palin (or any other politician) going to protect your life? Isn't that the most important question?

Absolutely -- and I have no doubt that she and McCain will. We will finally get the war on terrorism right I hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites