What's a Palin

Post by **Elderberry** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:57 pm

Yahoo must have also changed their 'point of view' as at least the top 10 listings on their site for "Yahoo slashes 10% of workforce" return informaiton on exactly that. So, it looks like there could even be hope for you lurker.

JK

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Tue Oct 21, 2008 11:58 pm

I still can't believe we might have a president married to a woman descended from arctic wolves!

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:05 am

Simon of the Playa wrote:indeed.

Im quite certain that strange ground we hold in the nether regions between left and right, also known as "the third way" is the best place to be.

the playa is also one of those places where black meets white and they make a HELLUVA good dirty martini together.

I think I would like mine with fruit cocktail instead of olives.

If you don't mind.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:56 am

Lurker, we will not get anywhere this way. I lay claim to an open mind and you insist that it is closed, simply because you don't like what I'm saying.

No. I say that I do not see you ACTING on it--at least insofar as this political discussion is concerned.

If I praised any of the right-leaning folks who have endorsed Obama before their endorsement you might have agreed with me. Now you sneer at them. Might I suggest that they don't think that they have changed?

But see, you aree with 'right-wing' people who are willing to accept left-wing policies--might I suggest that they might've been a bit left to begin with? Obama offers nothing that a Republican or a conservative can use, therefore, those who go for him have changed--or never were. Or are voting for reasons other than those stated--race, historiocity, protest. There are many reasons. I've even heard staunch conservatives say that they'll vote Obama because the Rs didn't learn their lesson--to be more conservative--in 06.

Greed does not work, because it makes people cut corners, to cheat others, to break laws, and to violate the social compact.

If one tries to aquire with criminality, it is the criminality that's bad--not the desire to aquire.

The same cannot be said for the bankers and brokers who kept feeding unreasonable mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, and created an unauditable mess through derivatives.

No, the same cannot be said--because they were required by law to do so. They had to find a way to make this profitable--and they used legal methods. The whole endeavor was built on a thin sheet of ice, the premise is faulty, it WAS going to collapse. You cannot make loans to risky borrowers and expect sucess.

You are partly right about Freddie and Fannie, but you ignore the bipartisan nature of the beast. You also ignore all of the deregulation that the R's (and McCain) pushed for in the banking and financial sectors aside from Freddie and Fannie.

Aside from Freddie and Fannie--the source of this mess. Would those other sectors be in trouble without the housing colapse? Somehow, I don't think so. They seemed to be doing just fine until F & F undermined confidence. So, is that the bipartisanship you're talking about? That the people who warned that F & F were going to screw everything up and must be attended to didn't do anything about the sectors of the industry that seem to have not needed anything done?

Sure, some blacks like some R policies (I'm quite skeptical about "most" blacks liking R policies in general), but it is the embrace of the old segregationist South that became the lynchpin of the R strategy, and continues to this day. Look at an electoral map. Or look at the haters at a Palin rally.

I've always had big problems with this idea. There's this theory out there that, for SOME reason the party that was fighting AGAINST Jim Crow Democrats suddenly became the party OF Jim Crow Democrats. And it's just not borne out by the facts. There was no shift in Congress after the Civil Rights Act passed in the sixties--as Jim Crow Democrats supposedly fled to the 'state's rights' party that had supported Civil Rights legislation. Far from it. In fact, the ex-Klan recruiter that led the filibuster against the CRA is a Democrat to this day--imagine that.

So it comes as no shock to me that blacks like R policies--because I don't believe the Ds actually changed. They just got better at telling glittering lies.

You don't like what the USCCR said. That does not make it wrong, and you've advanced nothing but a suggestion that the ballots prove that blacks can't handle voting. Which is suspiciously clustered in Florida, but not many other states. Try another explanation, because I'm not buying the notion that Florida blacks are so different.

Apparently RFKJ disagrees with you--

From Rolling Stone...

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in its investigation of the 2000 returns from Florida, found that African-Americans were nearly 10 times more likely than whites to have their ballots rejected, a ratio that holds nationwide.

The USCCR calls this possibly racist voter suppression. I call it people being sloppy. Most of these rejected ballots are machine rejected, though even those that aren't don't have a big red 'N' on them to denote that the voter was a negro. I think the imputation of racism is unfounded--unless them machines are puttin' on their white cartons and going out at night burning dial-up modems on Mac lawns.

Rather than simply saying 'Hey, don't make marks other than your vote on your ballot--why not just assume a big racist conspiracy?

You don't like what Colin Powell had to say, so you say he was motivated by race, and see no other explanation, despite a reasoned and lengthy speech by Powell.

Actually, what I'm saying is that, based on Powells' prior stances, the speech doesn't hold water.

You insist that Obama is a quasi-socialist, when others claim that he is a pragmatist.

Didn't know the two were mutually exclusive.

I've posted links to articles by respected people from the New York Times, the National Review, the New Yorker, Slate, the Washington Post, the American Conservative, the USCCR, and other sources.

See? I said that I've posted other things and posted the Card piece just to add to what I'd posted before--but all that other stuff is down the memory hole already, isn't it? Forgotten and ignored in the first place anyway. I bet the fact that he's D didn't even register.

Once again I lay claim to an open mind and the use of self examination. If I am wrong about Obama and the D's and they keep all of the illegal power amassed by the Bushies then I will oppose them. If they turn around and use torture I will say that I was wrong. If they don't attack the deficit then I will criticize them. Hell, I could even vote R.

Yeah? Well Barney Frank is already saying that deficit reduction's on the back burner--and the D controlled congress hasn't done a damned thing to dismantle the 'illegal' powers that congress gave Bush.

I won't hold my breath.

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:13 am

The whole endeavor was built on a thin sheet of ice, the premise is faulty, it WAS going to collapse. You cannot make loans to risky borrowers and expect sucess.

this is the shit that really bugs me....blame the poor, blame the Minorities for taking on loans they couldnt pay back...

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

blame the GREED and the FEES and the INSANE SALARIES and BONUSES that drove wall st into destitution.

and then, to plead that they were TAKEN? Duped? Finagled by those damn low income high risk "peoples"...

FUCK THAT SHIT LURKER!

even you must know deep in your heart that this particular republican/wall st/ big business talking point is FULL OF MEAN SPIRITED CRAP.

thank god we are going to kick your collective asses in 2 weeks.

ps....you may spell sucess this way, oxford's This way Success, but i spell it like this SuckCess.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:30 am

Blame the poor? What are you talking about?

I'm blaming the rich, in government, who created this boondoggle. Not the poor. The poor were sold a bill of goods--that the rich KNEW wouldn't work--but it would LOOK like it worked, for a while--which would keep them in power.

The poor, minority or not, got screwed.

And, bailout or not, Obama or not, the poor are going to be the ones that feel it most--while the rich will argue over lobster hors d'ouevres and champagne about who gets the blame for screwing them.

But blame only--no one will listen to anything that can actually HELP.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:57 am

Palin now getting criticized for charging the state of AK to pay for her family's airline tickets while SHE was on official biz!

Obama is now up with a 14% spread over McCain

GOP Spent $150, 000 in Donations on Palin's Look

"Article Tools Sponsored By
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 22, 2008

Filed at 10:42 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- John McCain's presidential campaign said thousands of dollars worth of clothing purchased by the Republican Party for running mate Sarah Palin will go to a ''charitable purpose'' after the campaign.

The Republican National Committee spent about $150,000 on clothing, hair styling, makeup and other ''campaign accessories'' in September for the McCain campaign after Palin, the governor of Alaska, joined the ticket.

The expenses include $75,062 spent at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis Minn., and $41,850 in St. Louis in early September. The committee also reported spending $4,100 for makeup and hair consulting. The expenses were first reported by Politico.com."

They could have saved knowing that Palin has not attracted women, but the male's vote!

A $35 Thong would have been enough!

AIIZ

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:09 pm

Her wardrobe.......150,000 $

Her Hair stylist........highest paid on McCains campaign staff, even more than his foreign policy advisor, over $20,000 in sept-oct alone...

Watching Sarah Palin take down the Republican Party in Flames....

priceless.

you betcha.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:50 pm

is that a Democrat I hear teasing someone about the price of a haircut?........

I hear the glass a tinklin'...........

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:54 pm

ygmir wrote:is that a Democrat I hear teasing someone about the price of a haircut?........

I hear the glass a tinklin'...........

Why do you think Democrats have different attitudes toward haircuts? You're not biased are you?

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:57 pm

hey! long *girl* hair costs a great deal more to maintain than short *boy* hair!

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:08 pm

What Edwards $400 haircut is expensive?

It's a hell of a lot cheaper then the haircuts Spitzer got!

Ooops, those were hairfucks not haircuts! Sorry

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:23 pm

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:What Edwards $400 haircut is expensive?

It's a hell of a lot cheaper then the haircuts Spitzer got!

Ooops, those were hairfucks not haircuts! Sorry

Oh, I get it.

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:44 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
Apollonaris Zeus wrote:What Edwards $400 haircut is expensive?

It's a hell of a lot cheaper then the haircuts Spitzer got!

Ooops, those were hairfucks not haircuts! Sorry
Oh, I get it.

yup, just funnin' with Simon, UD..........

Post by **Elderberry** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:13 pm

Simon of the Playa wrote:Her wardrobe.......150,000 $

Her Hair stylist........highest paid on McCains campaign staff, even more than his foreign policy advisor, over $20,000 in sept-oct alone...

Watching Sarah Palin take down the Republican Party in Flames....

priceless.

you betcha.

Ya, I thought it was interesting when they pointed out that amount was just about $30,000.00 more than Joe the Plumber's house!!!lol

And did you hear her remark on fruitflies in her policy speech? And here is why fruitfly research isn't a waste of money.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/

JK

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:52 pm

Maybe if it was Down's related, instead of Autism.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:39 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:Maybe if it was Down's related, instead of Autism.

A person that believes in witchcraft has no place in DC.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/us/p ... faith.html

Russell P. Spittler, provost emeritus at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., and an eminent scholar of Pentecostalism, said, â€œMost Christians would accept the view that there are forces and powers in the world that oppose Christian virtues.â€

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:24 am

has anyone seen this yet?
http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en- ... im_default

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:37 am

way ahead of you, debunked it YESTERDAY MORNING on the politics thread, much to Lurkers chagrin.

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:43 pm

littleflower wrote:hey! long *girl* hair costs a great deal more to maintain than short *boy* hair!

From my experience even short *girl* hair costs more to maintain then long *boy* hair.

Simon of the Playa wrote:way ahead of you, debunked it YESTERDAY MORNING on the politics thread, much to Lurkers chagrin.

I have no idea what you guys where talking 'bout, but the word "debunked" struck me as an odd word. Have we removed someone from the bunk? I supposed I could google, or check wikipedia but instead....

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:41 pm

wedeliver wrote:
littleflower wrote:hey! long *girl* hair costs a great deal more to maintain than short *boy* hair!
From my experience even short *girl* hair costs more to maintain then long *boy* hair.

It's true that women are held to a much higher standard in the grooming department.

That's one reason I'm a little androgenous.

At least I don't have to try high heels ever again.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:24 am

theCryptofishist wrote:It's true that women are held to a much higher standard in the grooming department.

Obviously you've never visited West Hollywood!

JK

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:38 am

jkisha wrote:
theCryptofishist wrote:It's true that women are held to a much higher standard in the grooming department.
Obviously you've never visited West Hollywood!

JK

we were talking hair, jk, not muscles!

but then, halloween is this week, isn't it? that's a different story, of course...

i actually had hippy hair for years .... then a beverly hills hair guy moved in downstairs, he does great work at in-home prices ... but it's still expensive.

i would love to have someone doing my hair and make-up every day ... and wardrobe budget! what fun! i would NOT choose those stupid pantsuits, though.

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:58 am

if you got it, flaunt it....

littleflower · Post by **littleflower** » Sun Oct 26, 2008 7:23 pm

..ooops

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:20 am

Y'know, I never saw the point of getting on Edwards for his haircuts, or Hillary for her $6,000.00 pantsuits--or even Michelle Obama's comment that a $600.00 stimulus check was useless--what could you get a pair of earrings?(yes, I'm paraphrasing)

Unless you're a contributor, it's not your money that's being spent. And if the candidate stayed in the fed matching funds guidelines, it's their choice how they spend their money, y'know?

If they think hair and wardrobe are more important than ads and campaigning, that's their malfunction.

And you Obamists should be happy they're wasting their money that way.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:35 am

Simon of the Playa wrote:

So how much was that hairdoo, simon?

on another note:

Palin has just said on national TV that McCain will balance the budget deficit during his first term.

Now I'm voting for him.

Right!

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:56 am

you cannot pay for hair like mine, you must earn it.

ps....dig the crazy peyos....

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:00 am

lurker wrote:
Unless you're a contributor, it's not your money that's being spent. And if the candidate stayed in the fed matching funds guidelines, it's their choice how they spend their money, y'know?

YOU ARE FUCKIN KIDDING RIGHT?

They get their money most of the time by wrangling taxpayer money.
When they spend "their money" they are thinking of how to offset with tax money later.

You did not know that?

Simon of the Playa · Post by **Simon of the Playa** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:05 am

Lurker is good at what he does....

just like Stanislas Yassukovich.