|
10 Sep 08 - 12:09 PM (#2436321) Subject: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I love double standards. Today, Obama is being criticized by the Republicants because he used the phrase "lipstick on a pig". McCain's fogies thought it was a sexist comment. First, it is an old expression that McCain is on record as having used. Second, if they thought it was sexist for Obama to use, why wasn't the lipstick phrase "sexist" when Palin noted that lipstick was the only difference between pitbulls and hockey moms? Come on, if you are going to criticize for a standard - at least try to live up to it yourself. Palin and McCain are going down in November - and not in the biblical sense. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:17 PM (#2436329) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice I just watched a clip of McCain calling Hillary's health care plan "lipstick on a pig" during the campaign. He did that twice. Republicans are looking for ANYTHING they can focus on that is NOT the issues of the campaign! And if they can cry sexist, all the better they do with glee. How ridiculous. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:18 PM (#2436332) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: mg I think it is not something he meant to refer to her statement..just a blooper...that is not a very common expression. Of course people related it to her lipstick comment, quite naturally. He should just apologize, say there was no connection in his mind, he and others had used the phrase before and he meant no insult. It did sound ugly to the casual observer but it was just one of those things you say without thinking...mg |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:18 PM (#2436333) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Paul Burke I think it's insulting to pigs. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:19 PM (#2436334) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Bobert Yeah, I read the article in today's Post and I think the entire thing is purdy funny, Ron... I tell ya' what... The McCain people have been so negative for so long now that if Obama found a cure for cancer they would find something negative to say about it... BTW, have you seen the baby??? John and Sarah might have gone down before and in a "biblical sense"... lol... Awww, jus' funnin'... (Gotta put that disclainer in before the local McCainites throw yet anothe hissy fit...) B~ |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:21 PM (#2436335) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice mg, yes it is a very common expression. I've heard it used my whole life. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:23 PM (#2436338) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "He should just apologize" For what? Did McCain apologize to Hillary? Why don't the Republicans grow a set and just start talking about the issues. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:28 PM (#2436344) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Rapparee Of course you can put lipstick on a pig, although I don't know why you'd want to do so. The pig can get really annoyed about it. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:28 PM (#2436345) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice Obama was NOT referring to Palin, he was talking about McCain's ideas. The Republicans are trying to find anything they can to stir up their "base" into an angry mob. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:29 PM (#2436346) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST, number 6 They're both jerks for saying it. Period. Politiks .. hmmmmpf. biLL |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:33 PM (#2436350) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos Obama's proposition was spot on--that for the Republicans to pose as agents of change, given her Pentecostal convictions and his new-found loyalty to the Rovian hierarchy, is hypocritical, just as "putting mascara on a wolverine" would be, to use a more Alaskan version of the same metaphor. Or "putting rouge on a Tanzanian devil". It will still stand there, looking mean and smelling bad, as an Aussie friend of mine once put it. A |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:36 PM (#2436354) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: MMario In the context of his speech it is quite obvious that the reference is not to Palin. Trying to make it appear to be so just makes the person making the accusation look bigoted and ignorant. my opinon - ymmv |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:36 PM (#2436356) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: irishenglish Even Mike Huckabee said yesterday that he was giving Obama some slack on this, as he has heard it said before, and did not entertain the thought that it was about Palin. Seriously, its to the point where Obama can't say any word that Palin has ever used without someone decrying it. Just come up with the list then of all the words Obama can't use-lipstick, hockey, bridge, oil, energy, mom...... |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:39 PM (#2436357) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: PoppaGator The phrase may not be familiar to everyone, but it has long been in widespread use among folks in the sales profession, referring to the lengths one must go to to convice a prospect to buy an inferior product (which is sometimes necessary if one hopes to make a living). |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:40 PM (#2436359) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: olddude I wish Obama would avoid the traps. They are going to try and swift boat him we all know that. My advise for what it is worth. Don't give them anything else they can try and throw at you. It was a poor choice of words and unwise. A harmless statement used in the past by the other guys but now with a lady running for VP on the other side it gives the bad guys a weapon so say something else like when pigs can fly ... |
|
10 Sep 08 - 12:44 PM (#2436362) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: irishenglish olddude-I disagree. I'm glad the Dems are fighting right back on some of the more absurd accusations being levelled against them. Stay the high road, but if they had done nothing on this one, most people would not have known that McCain had used the same exact phrase. The immediate response from Obama's people makes it known that they know the game and won't just let things go. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:03 PM (#2436380) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I agree with Irishenglish. Take the high road and keep fighting. When McCain used the term with Hillary, there wasn't a big stink and there was no apology. The Republicants ARE trying to swift boat Obama, but they are not bending over and grabbing their ankles this time. Palin and McCain will be exposed in the debates. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:05 PM (#2436381) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos Obama is laying it out as it is, calling the slimeball tactics what they are, and saying "Enough is enough". I believe this is the right path--push the discussion out of the gutter. Why should anyone want to fall into a discussion about the right COLOR of lipstick to put on a pig, instead of calling it what it is? A |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:07 PM (#2436384) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk Ron, you asked, "Why don't the Republicans grow a set and just start talking about the issues?" Why? I'll tell you why. The Republicans are well aware of the fact that they can get more mileage out of petty scandal, crass innuendo, patriotic cliches, and other emotional BS like that...because that's the stuff that makes an impression on the average American voter and sticks in his or her mind long enough to affect his or her decision at the ballot box. The last thing that is going to reach the mind of the average American voter is "the issues"!!!! Ha! The average American voter doesn't have enough attention span or interest to pay much attention to a patient exposition of "the issues", but they DO have enough attention span to latch onto scandal-mongering, sensationalistic rumor-spreading, character assassination, and other tawdry stuff like that. So the Republicans are doing exactly what they figure works best. You are not the average American voter, Ron. Neither is Amos. You guys are intellectuals. You love focusing on the finer points of "the issues"....but you're in a distinct minority in that respect. The general American public doesn't like intellectuals or relate to them. They distrust intellectuals and suspect that they are not patriots. Karl Rove and his ilk (if I may use that classic Mudcat expression) understand that. They use crude tactics that are geared to the majority of Americans, whose attitude might be satirized by saying: "Issues??? We don't need no steenkin' issues! Give us some more dirt!" This is true on the Right, it's true on the Left, and it's true at the center. Therefore, expect more tawdry and ridiculous campaigning between now and election day, expect a puerile series of personal attacks to be launched on the candidates on both sides over trivial matters, and expect those who talk seriously and intelligently about the issues to go largely unnoticed by your fruit-fly mentality electorate and media who would much rather be entertained by petty sensationalism than bored out of their skulls by a perceptive and thorough explanation of the issues. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:13 PM (#2436392) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: olddude But you see what happens. They will do their ads showing obama saying that and then a picture of Palin. The dems will respond with a clip of McCain saying that and a picture of Hillary. In the meantime people get tangled up in the war of words and diverts attention away from Obama's message. It plays into their hands. I don't think they have a good counter for him. So divert , divert , divert ... The longer they can stay away from the issues the more likely McCain will pick up more steam you see. I think myself the real issues come out in the debate then it gets settled. I just hate to see his message get side tracked. I hear what you are saying and it is not a bad idea, but I think it plays too much to the other side. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:14 PM (#2436393) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: katlaughing He tells it like it is: "Spare me the phony outrage, spare me the phony talk about change," Obama scoffed. "The McCain camp would much rather have this be about phony and foolish diversions," Obama said. He said it was reminiscent of earlier Republican campaign tactics of "lies, phony outrage and Swift Boat politics." Then there's the GOP inanity: "She is the only one of the four candidates for president, or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick," said former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, a member of the Palin Truth Squad. "I mean, it seemed to me a very gendered comment." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Palin Truth Squad" sounds like an oxymoron to me. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:24 PM (#2436405) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: MMario And we are suppossed to take credencee of the commment of a woman who thinks there are four candidates for president? |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:28 PM (#2436411) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice From CNN.com news: Attack on Palin, Or Common Line? It wasn't the first time Obama used the line. In a phone interview with The Washington Post last September, he used it in reference to the situation in Iraq. "I think that both Gen. [David] Petraeus and Ambassador [Ryan] Crocker are capable people who have been given an impossible assignment," Obama told the Post. "George Bush has given a mission to Gen. Petraeus, and he has done his best to try to figure out how to put lipstick on a pig." Other politicians have also used the phrase in recent years, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Rep. John Mica of Florida and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, among others. Torie Clarke, a former McCain adviser, even wrote a book called, "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game." |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:32 PM (#2436416) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stringsinger Palin is against the rights of women (Choice) and wants to punish rape victims in Wasilla by forcing them to have children. She is a liar about 1. Bridge to Nowhere 2. Selling her plane on eBay 3. Appropriating taxpayer money to stay at home 4. Not admitting that she makes racial slurs This person is not to be trusted. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:34 PM (#2436418) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "You are not the average American voter, Ron. Neither is Amos. You guys are intellectuals. You love focusing on the finer points of "the issues"....but you're in a distinct minority in that respect. The general American public doesn't like intellectuals or relate to them. They distrust intellectuals and suspect that they are not patriots." I think the American public does not like intellectuals that talk down to them. If the "intellectual" cannot relate, then of course the feeling is mutual. Bill Clinton may have the highest IQ of all the presidents, but he WAS trusted by the American public - regardless of what happened with Monica. Sure, voters love the juicy stories that are the fodder of tabloids. I think "intellectuals" are just as guilty - look at the thread here on Mudcat concerning book buring and Palin. It was not a moral outrage as much as it was a good opportunity to watch mud sling. From your posts, I realize that you have a low opinion of the American public, and I am sure the media has a lot to do with creating those perceptions. Yet when it comes time to vote, Americans DO think about their own values. The economy tends to determine the way the votes will go. Palin is a media darling right now - for good and bad - and I predict that the attention will soon fade. Not to sound sexist, because what I am about to say could go for any gender. When you start a new relationship, you tend to overlook the flaws and focus on the freshness of the relationship. The phermones are at work, the senses hightened, and you enjoy "something new" and "different". After a few weeks (or less), the newness fades and you are left with reality. If it is meant to be, the appeal will be found in a match that can work on other levels. Palin was a virtual unknown, as was Obama at one point, and Americans were reacting on passion. Trust me, the glow will change and we will see who America has a relationship with. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:39 PM (#2436421) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: olddude I think Ron just summed it up quite nicely ! |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:41 PM (#2436424) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice Ron, you may be right, but the campaign has very little time left before election day. I hope the truth is brought to voters' awareness quickly. That is Obama's job and the news media's job now. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:41 PM (#2436425) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 Thanks for the info Alice. I then retract what I said earlier .... in retrospect, McCain and Obama are not jerks for saying it. regardless .... Hmmmmmpf ...... politiks The carnival goes on and on and on .... biLL |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:42 PM (#2436429) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: SINSULL Has anyone noticed that baby bush is putting more troops into Afghanistan? |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:47 PM (#2436434) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 Obama also wants to put more troops in the Afghani. He said so ... 3 more divisions. biLL |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:49 PM (#2436437) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice Obama was speaking to an audience in Virginia when he used the colloquialism. It is a very conservative state, but the phrase is common use there and the people listening understood what he meant. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:50 PM (#2436438) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: kendall You will never see O'Bama speak at a NASCAR meet, or a bluegrass festival. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:50 PM (#2436440) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "the campaign has very little time left before election day." True, but there is something that is even more important than the results on election day. Al Gore received over 50 million votes in 2000, more than Bush received. John Kerry received over 59 million votes in 2004, about 3 million less than Bush received. People are becoming involved. I would hope that, regardless of the totals, the numbers continue to grow. There was doom and gloom when Bush was re-elected, and while we ARE in far worse shape than we were 4 years ago, we survived. We are also making change. Look at the candidates this year - there is change in policy on both side. I might be a bit Pollyanna here, but I think perceptions are changing and change is taking place. This should not be looked at so much as a competition but rather a step in our evolution. If I want a competition, I will turn on the Mets. This is life and we have different rules and goals. We can continue making change for the better. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:52 PM (#2436442) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "You will never see O'Bama speak at a NASCAR meet, or a bluegrass festival." That is something many of us strive to avoid! |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:54 PM (#2436447) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 I like bluegrass ... what's wrong with bluegrass ???? Oh, oh, now I'm sounding like an American Republican. biLL |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:54 PM (#2436448) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice I don't know... I've been thinking lately, as I did four years ago and eight years ago when Bush got into office, if McCain/Palin win, I'm serious about moving to Canada. I'm ashamed of America. The control by fundamentalist religious fanatics here is overwhelming. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:55 PM (#2436449) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "I like bluegrass ... what's wrong with bluegrass " Nothing wrong with bluegrass. Some of my best friends like bluegrass. I wouldn't want my kids marrying one! :) |
|
10 Sep 08 - 01:58 PM (#2436450) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 Good one Ron ... LOL. Alice ... apply at you nearest Canadian Immigration point now ... there could be a rush after the November elections. biLL |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:00 PM (#2436452) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Barry Finn Ex Governor of Mass, Jane Swift is the new attack dog for the McCain/Palin campain. She's the one doing the attacking on this "lipstick issue". This it the way of putting some distance between the canidates & the attack on Obama. Swift has a bit in common with Palin, they're the only 2 govenors tha gave birth will in office & both are mongrels. During Jane's term she had to fight to remain as charges were brought against her for using the State Police as a taxi service assisting her with her commute from Downtown Boston to her home in western Mass. by the SP's helio. She also was rebuked for using the State Police as a baby sitting service. They are both fit for work as attack dogs. Barry |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:01 PM (#2436454) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice My company has a Canadian division. There are openings in Calgary and British Columbia for the same kind of work I do for the company in Montana. It's a real possibility... |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:03 PM (#2436459) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 Go for it Alice ... you'll be welcomed here. biLL |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:07 PM (#2436465) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos If I were Obama, my rejoinder would be, "I meant no reference to Ms Palin or any other human individual; but if the shoe fits, she is free to wear it if she so desires." Alternatives continue to spring to mind: you can put a sports bra on a Kodiak, but its still a monstrous carnivore with big teeth. You can put perfume on a wild boar, but it will still stink. You can put a wig on a Great White, but it won't stay. A |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:07 PM (#2436466) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "I'm serious about moving to Canada. I'm ashamed of America. The control by fundamentalist religious fanatics here is overwhelming. " The grass is always greener. I guess it is safer to run than fight. Change can only come from individuals, and that was an overwhelming message that I took away from Obama's speech at the DNC. HE will not make the change, we will. I guess some people will feel like you do and just give up, but overall I think there are enough people that are standing up and forcing change that it will continue with or without you. There are plenty of things to be ashamed of, and it takes courage and determination and a lot of patience to carry on. I guess we all need to do a gut check and see if we have what it takes to join in. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:08 PM (#2436467) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice Big Mick told me not to leave the last election, to stay and fight. I've tried. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:10 PM (#2436469) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: John on the Sunset Coast Sarah Palin introduced the lipstick analogy...it is fair game. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:16 PM (#2436477) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk I hope you are correct, Ron. There's no doubt that people don't like intellectuals who talk down to them. The impression I get, though, is that anyone who is capable OF talking like an intellectual at all and who does so quickly gets accused of talking down to ordinary Americans whether or not he is in fact doing so. He may not be talking down to them at all, but he gets accused of it. And people believe the accusation. He becomes "an elitist" simply for stating a complex truth clearly. Therein lies the problem. Yes, Bill Clinton is known to be a very intelligent man, but he came across to the public in a very folksy kind of way. He didn't act like an intellectual. He was a master at conveying a folksy kind of familiarity and a comfortable impression to the masses, and that's what it takes to get elected in the USA. You've got to emulate the kind of wise but simple and straight-talkin' down home frontier "Pa and Ma" stereotypes that have been perpetuated on American TV dramas ever since the 1950s. It's pure posturing. Bill Clinton was very good at it. Reagan was very good at it. Jimmy Carter was quite good at it in his first presidential election campaign, but Reagan was even better at it in 1980 and the Iran crisis killed Carter's chances anyway. The issue isn't whether you're really smart or not, the issue is whether you can act to fit the warm and fuzzy American stereotype of the stern but kindly Father figure (or much less frequently, the feisty and courageous but virtuous Mother figure). Now anyone who is really smart, with a really good command of the issues, but who is not so good at fitting into that folksy stereotypical outer image of the Frontier Father (or Mother)...well, that person will be accused of being an elitist, an ivory chair intellectual, a person out of touch with the aspirations of ordinary Americans. And he very probably won't get elected. What does it take to fit into the stereotypical image that Americans trust for the highest office? What does it take to be "Abe Lincoln", "Pa Cartwright", "John Wayne", etc... 1. you have to look the part 2. you have to sound the part (plain talk, homespun expressions, lots of patriotic bla-bla) 3. you have to keep things really simple (and repeat them often) 4. you have to appear really "tough" and ready to take on all foreign enemies at the drop of a hat 5. you have to for God's sake NOT be seen as a wimp! (remember G.H.W. Bush, Michael Dukakis, Carter, and other such unfortunates who were tagged as "wimps"?) 6. you have to be officially Christian and officially a believer in God 7. you have to be officially heterosexual 8. you pretty much have to be a family man (I think there was one president way back when in the 1800s who wasn't married) 9. you have to be a white man. That's what it's always been in the past. That's a very tough trend to buck. I find that worrisome, to say the least. Adlai Stevenson is a fine example of a very intelligent politician who lost out badly to the phenomenon I'm describing. His presentation was far too intellectual for the taste of the American public, but I certainly don't think he was talking down to anyone. Dennis Kucinich is a fine example of a very intelligent politician who took on the real ISSUES in a far more clear and honest manner than any of the other presidential candidates in the two major parties, and how did the public and the media react to him? They mostly just ignored him. He wasn't even allowed to participate in two crucial primary debates. He was shut out of them on ridiculous technicalities. Why? Because he was telling uncomfortable truths. He did not fit the list above, nor did he act the required phony part that all American politicians must act in order to win significant media and public acceptance. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:19 PM (#2436479) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: dick greenhaus For Chrissake! Can't anybody focus on the damn issues? |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:22 PM (#2436483) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos Here are the real things this presidential campaign should turn on: 1. How do we resolve the education gap nationally to create comeptitive science, engineering and business people tor evitalize the economy long term, to create a new generation of important artists to restore the nation's soul, and a new generation of leaders to create vital new visions and direction? 2. How do we turn our lame and limping oil-driven economy, battered by a flattening international market, into an innovative, energy-independent, self-reliant, fiscally sound economy? 3. How do we ensure the fundamental safety of the nation to ensure these things can happen? 4. How do we regenerate an infrastructure to accomodate the new order of magnitude of population of the country, including water, road, waste, and environmental services? 5. How do we manage our relations with neighbors, allies, and other nations do allow thiese thigns to happen with minimum disruption and maximum international benefit? Note that these are the issues Obama talks about over and over, and the issues that ther media repeatedly avoids, and that the Republicans mock. Note that none of them involves sex, abortion, or a fixation on body parts, and none of them are predicated on hatred, revenge, or unkind attitudes toward others; they arepredicated instead on what is effective across the spectrum of national concerns. The core of this crucial election is NOT lipstick or rhetoric. A |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:24 PM (#2436487) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 "I guess it is safer to run than fight. " I can appreciate Alices delima .... after 8 years, and possibly another 4 to 8 of it is better to pull up roots and find greener pastures .... just like our ancestors did when they came to the "new land". biLL |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:29 PM (#2436491) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Richard Bridge Kucinich did |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:29 PM (#2436492) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk dick, regarding "the issues"...please refer to my post of 10 Sep 08 - 01:07 PM The majority of the American public does not vote on the basis of genuine issues or on the basis of reason. They vote on the basis of vague and very superficial, yet powerful emotional impressions that have precious little (if anything) to do with any of the real issues at hand. They think they're voting with certain issues in mind, all right, but they have simply cherry picked the specific supposed issues that "feel" right to support their pre-existing emotional prejudices. And thus are elections won and lost. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:29 PM (#2436493) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Ebbie "He wasn't even allowed to participate in two crucial primary debates. He was shut out of them on ridiculous technicalities." LH Little Hawk, I was agreeing with you until you wrote the above. "Ridiculous technicalities"? Is that the same thing as rules? |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:31 PM (#2436494) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I do appreciate Alice's dilemma. We do need to do a "gut check". When my ancestors came to the "new land" from Europe in the 18th, they were seeking opportunity - but they were lucky, they were not fleeing from persecution. There are plenty of reasons to pick up stakes. Most of us move at one time or another, whether it be from the home and town where we grew up or for a career opportunity later in life, or perhaps to a new location for retirement. In those cases, our decision is based on individual needs. IF Alice is truly in a situation where her life needs a change to improve, that is terrific. But to make a move simply because you are "ashamed" is not the right reason, trust me, you won't find the answer because by simply moving further away from the problem - the problem will exist, and you will know it. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:43 PM (#2436504) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Sawzaw "John and Sarah might have gone down before and in a "biblical sense"" Is Bobert implying that anyone that has a "special needs" child is a loser? |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:48 PM (#2436509) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk Well, Ebbie, Kucinich successfully launched a court action to be included in one of those primary debates...and he won it. The powers that be had less than 24 hours to do something about that and they did...they managed to pull together an extraordinary session of high judges at a state supreme court level to overturn the lower court's ruling, and they did it with an hour or two to spare before the start of the debate! Can you imagine the urgency that someone in high places attached to achieving that? That is simply incredible, and it tells me that this wasn't a matter of "rules" at all. It was a matter of a ruling power structure deciding in no uncertain terms that a specific politician had to be muzzled for the sake of some larger political purposes. You can look it all up for the details if you want. It happened in one of the western states, I think it might have been Nevada. Rules such as you refer to are interpreted by lawyers. Different lawyers seem to reach different interpretations of the same rules. That can depend on who they are working for, I think, and how much they get paid. To assume that it's all an honest and well-intentioned process or that it necessarily has anything to do with truth and justice would be highly naive, in my opinion. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 02:52 PM (#2436513) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos Is Bobert implying that anyone that has a "special needs" child is a loser? No, just that some form of sexual transaction must have been involved... Mrooowwrrrr.... ;>) A |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:05 PM (#2436525) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: katlaughing I posted this earlier; don't know where it went. Obama on lipstick: "Spare me the phony outrage, spare me the phony talk about change," Obama scoffed. "The McCain camp would much rather have this be about phony and foolish diversions," Obama said. He said it was reminiscent of earlier Republican campaign tactics of "lies, phony outrage and Swift Boat politics." The inanity of the GOP: "She is the only one of the four candidates for president, or the only vice presidential candidate who wears lipstick," said former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift, a member of the Palin Truth Squad. "I mean, it seemed to me a very gendered comment." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Palin Truth Squad sounds like oxymoron to me. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:05 PM (#2436526) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: irishenglish You know, fair enough LH, and I get the point you are making, but these are the people we have now, so whatever your hopes were for change,Kucinich is gone. I admire him tremendously, but he backed out in this election WAY earlier than last time, and he has come out in support of Obama/Biden. I know you know that, but at this point, its no use arguing about the rules such as they are now-flawed and broken. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:17 PM (#2436543) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Dennis Kucinich is a fine example of a very intelligent politician who took on the real ISSUES in a far more clear and honest manner than any of the other presidential candidates in the two major parties, and how did the public and the media react to him? They mostly just ignored him. He wasn't even allowed to participate in two crucial primary debates. He was shut out of them on ridiculous technicalities. Why? Because he was telling uncomfortable truths." That is just your opinion. I like Kucinich, but the last place I want to see him is in the White House. I don't think his ideas and demeanor would work in THAT job. I think he is a much better force for change where he is, just as Ted Kennedy has done in the Senate. You might call it a "technicality", but the rules were set. His campaign was not sparking. You cannot simply turn a camera on EVERYONE that has a "good idea". The individual needs to build that spark of interest. Kucinich was, at best, appealing to the fringe. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:23 PM (#2436552) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk Kucinich never had a hope in hell of winning his party's primary series and running for president on the Democratic ticket. He was way too far outside the unofficial guidelines for what you are supposed to say when running for president in 2008, and neither the public nor the party machine would ever have given him majority support. So it wasn't that they feared him actually winning the top spot. No. What they feared was that he would embarrass the other Democrats who were contending for the top spot and make them look bad for having such lacklustre actual policies and past record on matters like opposing the war in Iraq, for example. He would screw up the whole impression that was to be created in the public's mind if he did that, so he had to be shut out of the process. If not shut out of the process he could have had much useful effect, I think, but he'd never have won the top spot. No chance. I have no problem with him supporting Obama now. That's okay with me. It could have been better than that, but that's life. He backed out of the election so early because the Republicans started pouring simply incredible amounts of money into his local area to knock him out of his Senate seat, and he had to give up the national campaign and go and fight for political survival on his own home turf. And that process is continuing. They want him out of office because he is pushing a Congressional motion to impeach Bush and Cheney for illegal and unconstitutional actions in regards to the war in Iraq, and he won't quit. That has made him number one man on their national hit list (politically speaking, I mean). They want Kucinich gone for good. He is the one thing that Washington WILL not tolerate: a man of principle. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:32 PM (#2436560) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Ed T I would seriously suspect any farmer who put lipstick on any of his/her pigs, male or female. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:35 PM (#2436567) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 I'd get on the phone to PETA right away ! rat him out for sure. biLL :) |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:42 PM (#2436579) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: irishenglish Again I say LH-he's admirable, what he did was admirable. I voted for him in the primaries the last election, as did a lot of my other friends. But its counterproductive now. The Greens tried getting him to quit the Democratic Party-he wouldn't do it. He's a Democrat. All of what you said is true, but do you hear him griping about the Democratic Party? I don't know if he has on record or not, but I can tell you about Kucinich is, he wouldn't be sticking around as a Democrat, if he didn't firmly believe in the Democratic Party. The focus now is on Obama. I get you, but it just doesn't do any good right now. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:42 PM (#2436580) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "They want Kucinich gone for good." He has been re-elected 5 times in his district and faces a tough battle. You are right, they want him gone. At the same time, he was rejected by the American public. His opinions were well know, but not everyone agrees with him. I think his foreign policies and efforsts against the war scared off many people. You and I might agree with 99 or 100% of his views, but there are reasons why most people did not want him for president. I do agree, there is a lot that money and media do for a campaign. Yet with every "investment" that is made on Wall Street, nn investor is only going to back a product that works. America rejected Kucinich for president. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:47 PM (#2436586) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: olddude Everyone should read this, points well taken politics of the stupid |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:53 PM (#2436598) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stilly River Sage Obama Says "Enough" With "Phony" Controversy NORFOLK, VA - At a town hall meeting in Virginia's Tidewater region, Barack Obama took a few minute of the education-themed event to address concerns that he may have offended John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin at an event yesterday on other side of the state. That would be, of course, his use of the "L" word to knock the McCain/Palin promise for change. "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said less than 24 hours ago, generating a McCain-induced whirlwind of media coverage around whether or not what he said was sexist. "We are here to talk about education, but, you know, I'm running for president, so that means I've got to spend a just a brief moment talking a little bit about politics," Obama said apologetically to a roomful of teachers, parents, and school board officials. "Before we begin today, I want to say a few words about the latest, made up controversy by the John McCain campaign," he continued as the crowd chuckled. Obama proclaimed his comment was innocent and taken out of context - and pushed onto the willing media like "catnip." He scoffed at their "outrageous ad" released this morning, which was played on the morning TV shows, and explained it was all a calculated effort by the GOP. "[The McCain campaign] would much rather have the story about phony and foolish diversions than about the future," he said. An exasperated Obama ticked off the ills facing the nation - including a tanking economy, two wars, and an energy crisis - and incredulously exclaimed, "And this is what they want to talk about? This is what they want to spend two of the last 55 days talking about?" The lipstick flap comes after Obama has accused the McCain campaign of trying to make the election about character and personality instead of issues - so far successfully, it would seem. Frustrated, Obama declared, "I don't care what they say about me, but I love this country too much to let them take over another election with lies and phony outrage and swift boat politics. Enough is enough!" But with so many news outlets - especially cable and Internet - influencing the news cycle, it seems as though personalities, gaffes, and yes, even made up controversies will continue to make their way to the forefront of political coverage. "This is a game that we play. It's a game. It's a sport. And maybe if this wasn't such a serious time it would be okay," Obama said. So how does he plan on cutting through the Republicans' effective tactics? "We are just going to keep on presenting the facts, truthfully, forcefully, consistently every day. We are going to hammer away at the fact that the stakes in this election are too high. They have to do with whether we can rebuild the middle class and put this country back on a pathway to success in the 21st century competitive, global economy. We're going to hammer away at that every single day. And I trust the American people to pay attention," he explained. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:54 PM (#2436599) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Bill D "putting rouge on a Tanzanian devil" as a charter member of S.O.C.P (Society of Compulsive Pedants) I wish to express my doubts that the ARE devils of that sort in Tanzania (perhaps in a zoo in Dar es Salaam). ...though there might be some in Tasmania. no, Amos...don't bother to thank me *ducking for cover* |
|
10 Sep 08 - 03:58 PM (#2436609) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: olddude Does anyone know if this is true. I just got it from my kid Subject: Fwd: Fw: Fact Checking from Sarah Palin's Neighbor In case you haven't seen this yet. http://www.andrys.com/palin-kilkenny.html http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/sarahpalin.asp >> ABOUT SARAH PALIN >> by Anne Kilkenny >> August 31, 2008 >> >> I am a resident of Wasilla , Alaska . I have known Sarah since 1992. >> Everyone here knows Sarah , so it is nothing special to say we are on >> a first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her >> father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a >> first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more >> City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the >> residents of the city. >> >> She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular >> girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and >> won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because >> she is a "babe". >> >> It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret.
[edited for length: please remember not to C&P extremely long articles> The link will serve for those who wish to read it all.] |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:03 PM (#2436617) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie It's clear that Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark was about John McCain's policies. Palin was neither mentioned nor referred to obliquely in his comments. If you watch or listen to the remark in context -- from when he starts with McCain's policies on economics, education, foreign policy, etc., to where he mentions an old fish smelling as bad as the Republicans' policies over the PAST 8 YEARS -- it's undeniable that Palin was not the target. What worries me is that I am UNABLE TO FIND the original speech (even that short excerpt) either on You Tube or via "the google." It was there earlier this morning on You Tube. Now all I get are excerpts, the vast majority edited and spun by Obama opponents. Whazzup with that? But since the media seem to be making it the scandal du jour and making a BFD out of it, I think Obama and Biden should run this ad: "We never called McCain's running mate a pig. She's not. She's a charming woman. She's just the Queen Of Pork." (The crawl at the bottom would be listing the stats showing how much she brought back home in "earmarks.") |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:05 PM (#2436620) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Bill D I saw what I guess was that interview with the woman in Alaska on TV the other day. It seems to be the real thing. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:06 PM (#2436621) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel I don't get it I thought men were pigs I thought police were called pigs I thought Palin was a baracuda pit bull mix Do republicans think Palin is a pig? Can Obaba use the phrase 'casting pearls before swine' without bible thumpers claiming he is desecratiung Christ or calling Palin a pig? Is everytime Palin use the word Jesus in her campaign, is she taking the lord's name in vain ? Its true Limbaugh and CNN are working this "developing story" to death. THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY ANIMAL REFRENCES IN THIS ELECTION period A pig, a pit bull a barracuda and a moose walk into a bar... so what |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:07 PM (#2436623) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Does anyone know if this is true." Olddude - I assume because you gave the snopes link you have read it. They give sources. While I know we hope to find answers, it is always best to check things out for yourself and make your own decison. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:08 PM (#2436624) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: SINSULL The Anne Kilkenny letter is real - one woman's take on Palin. I would not want the world to judge me solely by the opinion of someone who has known me for years and disliked me. We all have those in our background. Once again I ask does anyone here know that baby bush is planning to increase troops in Afghanistan? |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:08 PM (#2436626) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq Anne Kilkenny has been shown to be a Democratic Party operative and is the same one who started the "banned book" rubbish. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:09 PM (#2436628) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: curmudgeon I was quite amused at Ms. Palin referring to herself as a pit bull, especially as we all know what female dogs are called - Tom |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:09 PM (#2436629) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie [[mg said "I think it is not something he meant to refer to her statement..just a blooper...that is not a very common expression. ]] Actually, it's a very common, time-honored expression (especially in the south and midwest), often used in politics -- with absolutely no gender implication. I googled "lipstick on a pig" and found these: first 100 instances 63 more instances |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:14 PM (#2436634) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stilly River Sage Pit bulls don't need lipstick (not even to give you a kiss, like my pooch is doing). And Palin is giving pit bulls a bad name when comparing them to hockey moms. The vicious creatures are the two-legged ones. SRS |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:15 PM (#2436635) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: irishenglish Yes Sinsull, saw it yesterday. It's long overdue of course, and also has been something Obama has been saying for quite some time. I'm going to hope that its not part of a political move on the Republicans part and be diamonds on a giraffe, but we shall see. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:15 PM (#2436636) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: dick greenhaus "but a snake don't get no sweeter by the changing of its name..." (Boomer Johnson in Digitrad) |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:18 PM (#2436638) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel NPR reported that a troop increase in Afghanistan is immenent. IT was announced in conjunction with a troop withdrawl in January (when Bush is history) |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:19 PM (#2436640) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: MarkS Time to stop boreing us all with these swinish comments and worry about which candidate will really bring home the bacon. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:30 PM (#2436651) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel KEY RIIIST some idiots are putting lipstick on their dogs now. Repubican dogs? I think not. Dogs are most Democratic. Where are they getting veternary grade lipstick anyway. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 04:56 PM (#2436674) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Dogs are most Democratic" Who doesn't love dogs after all!! |
|
10 Sep 08 - 05:30 PM (#2436701) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Lox He quoted McCain - its that simple. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 05:45 PM (#2436712) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Ed T What the British could teach political canidates in the former British colony, the US of A: Question: Should there be similar USA election regulations? ANIMALS, ENGLAND PREVENTION OF CRUELTY, Farmed Animals Regulations 2003 Prevention of fighting (1) If pigs are kept together, measures shall be taken to prevent fighting which goes beyond normal behaviour. Pigs which show persistent aggression towards others or are victims of such aggression shall be isolated or kept separate from the group. More of this wise stuff at : http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/draft/ukdsi_0110446577_en.pdf |
|
10 Sep 08 - 06:03 PM (#2436728) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel my parody news: Mary Kay lip stick sales are up 63% Proud Palin Pink is the top seller. Like the yellow ribbon SUV decals , Lipstick stickers for the grill of your SUV are really CUTE. (Obama on the stump), "Are the Republicans going to deliver health care, education? I suggest you ask McCain and Palin how." Ann Coulter suddenly jumps up and starts yelling "He called Govenor Palin a HO, he called her a Ho, you heard him, he called Palin a HO!! SEXIST PIG he called... |
|
10 Sep 08 - 06:17 PM (#2436736) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos PDQ: What exactly do you mean by "shown to be" and "operative" in that sentence? You're making things sound quite different than I think they actually are, so I'd like a definition and some sources. Or do you mean "has been called by someone ill-tempered",,,? A |
|
10 Sep 08 - 06:20 PM (#2436738) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel Rolling stone red lip pins are selling out Fred Limpstrung of Altoona PA lost 3 fingere today while applying lipstick to his 3 year old pit bull Chomper. Don Imus, much to the dismay of the Obama camp, is speaking out against pig allegations. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 06:34 PM (#2436752) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: artbrooks That section of the speech says "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." ... "You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called 'change,it's still gonna stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing! There have been some suggestions that, in addition to owing Palin an apology, Obama owes McCain one for this ageist comment clearly directed toward him. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 06:39 PM (#2436762) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos I submit that McCain and Palin both owe the American people, and Barack Obama as their potential leader, an abject apology for making such statements even necessary by demeaning the meaning of language and adulterating the substance of the American public dialogue. A |
|
10 Sep 08 - 06:42 PM (#2436765) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: The Fooles Troupe "A pig, a pit bull a barracuda and a moose walk into a bar..." ... and that joke has only 2 legs ... |
|
10 Sep 08 - 07:02 PM (#2436788) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq Perhaps you are all confusing Sarah Palin with this... powerful politician |
|
10 Sep 08 - 07:10 PM (#2436798) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: The Fooles Troupe "There have been some suggestions that, in addition to owing Palin an apology, Obama owes McCain one for this ageist comment clearly directed toward him." I think BOTH Parties owe the whole electorate an apology for BEING that stupid and puerile... |
|
10 Sep 08 - 07:10 PM (#2436799) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Ebbie You got that right, pdq. I had thought that Palin looked better than that, however. Must've had a rough night. lol |
|
10 Sep 08 - 07:45 PM (#2436823) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: katlaughing From the link provided a few posts back: Maybe McCain thinks cautioning kids about creeps is a bad thing, but I doubt it. I even doubt that McCain buys what his own ad is slimily implying--that Obama is some sort of perverted sexual deviant who wants to parade pornographic images in front of the nation's prepubescent children. But the problem is, McCain is treating the American people as if they're stupid enough to believe just that. Obama spokesman Bill Burton called the effort "shameful and downright perverse." I think "cynical" is more accurate. McCain is running that specific ad here, in Colorado, during prime time news. It is sickening...I'd like to know how they can put out such lies with impunity. (Rhetorical question, please do not answer.) Sins, I've been listening to NPR all day, about it. I think the shurb is hoping to do all kinds of evil bullshit before he leaves...all of teh attention is off of him, so he thinks he can do whatever he wants. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 08:16 PM (#2436866) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stilly River Sage Yup. He's trying to gut the folks at Planned Parenthood even as you type. Trying to set them up so they're stuck with "employees" who refuse to answer questions or make referrals and there would be nothing they could do about such plants. Since the pro-life pharmacists weren't allowed to refuse service to customers, they're trying to dig deeper into the provider network: "The proposed rule would require family planning clinics to employ people who refuse to provide family planning services--even to the point of withholding information and refusing to refer patients elsewhere." Planned Parenthood of North Texas. SRS |
|
10 Sep 08 - 09:07 PM (#2436890) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: artbrooks SRS, I read the information at that link, but I cannot find your quote. Is it somewhere else on the PP site? |
|
10 Sep 08 - 09:13 PM (#2436895) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Stilly, I agree that Sarah Palin comparing herself to a pit bull is an insult to the dogs. Judging from her RNC speech, she's much more mean-spirited and vicious. G |
|
10 Sep 08 - 09:22 PM (#2436900) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Foolsestroupe, there may be things the Democrats need to apologize to the American people for (like not standing up strongly enough against the Bush administration's trashing of our Constitution and our basic rights), but Obama's "lipstick" and "old fish" comments are not among them. His remarks were directed squarely and explicitly at McCain's planned continuation of the failed policies of the past 8 years and were spot on. Genie |
|
10 Sep 08 - 09:26 PM (#2436901) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: artbrooks 100 |
|
10 Sep 08 - 10:31 PM (#2436932) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko 100?? are we still in grade school?? |
|
10 Sep 08 - 10:32 PM (#2436933) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko I only got a 98 :( |
|
10 Sep 08 - 10:33 PM (#2436935) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Just teasing... you can put lipstick on a pig but you can't make him drink... wait, hold on a second.... a bird with a bush is worth.....ahh,never mind :) |
|
10 Sep 08 - 10:44 PM (#2436950) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger J. Edgar Hoover. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 10:57 PM (#2436958) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 Good one Rigin !!! |
|
10 Sep 08 - 11:15 PM (#2436968) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie You can put lipstick on a pit bull, but that doesn't make it a good service dog. |
|
10 Sep 08 - 11:54 PM (#2436994) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: dick greenhaus "You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think" (Dorothy Parker) |
|
11 Sep 08 - 12:22 AM (#2437020) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk It's the same problem with Nigel Tufnel. |
|
11 Sep 08 - 03:39 AM (#2437081) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: BK Lick Sarah Palin: A Trojan Moose Concealing Four More Years of George Bush Arianna Huffington Huffingtonpost.com - September 8, 2008 Did Sarah Palin wrongfully push to have her ex-brother-in-law fired? Was she really against the "Bridge to Nowhere?" Did she really sell Alaska's plane on eBay, or just list it on eBay? Did she actually have any substantial duties commanding the Alaska National Guard? |
|
11 Sep 08 - 06:58 AM (#2437172) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Jim Dixon Where exactly in the Bible does it refer to "going down ... in the biblical sense"? |
|
11 Sep 08 - 08:37 AM (#2437230) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: SINSULL Anyone paying attention to the crap going on in the Department of the Interior? Wonder why an investigation that started in 2006 happens to make the news mid-election campaigning? |
|
11 Sep 08 - 08:42 AM (#2437235) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger If the Democrats really wanted change, they would have offered the American public a candidate the public could trust. |
|
11 Sep 08 - 08:57 AM (#2437244) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,number 6 I agree with you Rigin ... with the current candidates the country is still deeply devided .... only a serious shakeup, and I mean a serious shakeup / wakeup can solve the issues .... otherwise the status quo remains the same ... I'll be interested in seeing what the content of the politikal BS threads will be a year from now here in the Mudcat, regardless of who wins the 'kupi doll' in this election carnival. biLL |
|
11 Sep 08 - 10:00 AM (#2437304) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I thought Obama was PROMISING CHANGE!....NOT MORE OF THE SAME?? Attacking Palin, is like Bush attacking Iraq....ITS THE WRONG TARGET, STUPID!!!!!!!!!! He should stick to his issues, and or attack the Presidential candidate, not the VP choice....but she got to him and his self consumed ego!!! His irrational behavior in this matter,(even with all his bullshit bktracking), is not CHANGE......ITS MORE OF THE SAME!!!!!!!! |
|
11 Sep 08 - 10:02 AM (#2437307) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko "Where exactly in the Bible does it refer to "going down ... in the biblical sense"? " Page 198. |
|
11 Sep 08 - 10:07 AM (#2437315) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel Again Sanity GUEST hits the nail on the head, It is about Stupidity and hitting yourself in the head. Be Careful Sanity GUEST, we worry about you. |
|
11 Sep 08 - 10:15 AM (#2437328) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel unposted cartoons Obama in Virginia), "Are the Republicans going to deliver health care, education? I suggest you ask McCain and Palin HOW. th..." Ann Coulter suddenly jumps up and starts yelling "He called Govenor Palin a HO, he called her a Ho, you heard him, he called Palin a HO!! SEXIST PIG he called her a Ho ... gasp...pretend to faint. Picture of a Colossal Trojan Moose with lipstick on is outside the castle gates. A pig on the drawbridge blocks its advance and says "I just don't trust you" (a small pit bull's head is seen peeking out of the Moose's butt and barracuda are seen in the moat) |
|
11 Sep 08 - 10:16 AM (#2437329) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I know Donuel, I worry about me, too....and the rest of our country. Clear thinking people are a tiny minority, anymore! C, B Sharp, but B Natural!!...wink |
|
11 Sep 08 - 10:24 AM (#2437336) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Bobert "A candidate the public can trust" = White!!! That is the bottom line here, Rigs, and though alot of folks can'r or won't admit it that is what the MCCain campaign is hitting thru personal attacks which have nothin' to do with policy... They are going right to white America's fears of black people... I heard a white guy on NPR a little while ago being interviewed with a number of other people of various ethnis backgrounds and he purdy much said what the Repubs have given him when he said, "I'm not against a black man being president, just not this black man..." Yeah, right, pal... Like which black man would you want as president would have been my question had I been the interviewer... B~ |
|
11 Sep 08 - 10:29 AM (#2437340) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos HAng tough, folks, and let the man move, for chrissakes. He ain't even in office yet! And, to get in, he has to give them pressies a sop or two, eh? A |
|
11 Sep 08 - 02:21 PM (#2437555) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: SINSULL And on the humerous side: I just sent out a company wide memo. We have a large glass pig in the company kitchen for pennies - collected for a local charity. She sports VERY LARGE RED LIPS. My memo reads: Penny has asked that the Giving Committee makes it absolutely clear that her make-up job is not a political comment just an unfortunate coincidence. She loves the $20 but would appreciate pennies as well. Give lots and give often! |
|
11 Sep 08 - 02:39 PM (#2437568) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Jim Dixon asked: "Where exactly in the Bible does it refer to "going down ... in the biblical sense?" Didn't you ever hear the old spiritual "Go Down, Moses?" G ; D |
|
11 Sep 08 - 02:52 PM (#2437578) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Guest from Sanity, If you bothered to read or listen to what Obama actually said in that "lipstick" speech, you'd see that it was neither John McCain nor Sara Palin that he was calling a "pig," it was the policies of the Bush/Cheney administration, which McCain wants to continue. Sadly, I cannot find the video of Obama's actual speech on line any more, but here is what he said in the "lipstick" portion: ([Here's John McCain's message to Washington] "... Watch out George Bush! Except for economic polici, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove style policy, we're realy gonna shake things up in Washington. That's not change! That's keeping the same thing and calling it something different. You can't ... You can put lipstick on a pig ... (crowd roars and applauds) and it's still a pig. You can't wrap an old fish in newspaper and expect not to smell as bad after 8 years. ... " If you think Barack was alluding to Palin as the "pig," you've either been grossly misled by YouTubes and blogs and ads that have taken the "pig" comment out of context and deliberately, inaccurately attached it to a picture of Palin or to her convention speech -- or you're deliberately choosing to distort the plain facts that are right in front of your nose. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you, like a lot of the public, have heard only the spin and distortions and not the actual facts. Peace Genie |
|
11 Sep 08 - 02:54 PM (#2437582) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: artbrooks Bobert sez, Like which black man would you want as president...? Uh - Clarence Thomas? |
|
11 Sep 08 - 03:28 PM (#2437612) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos GFS: In your energetic leap for anything that allows histrionic, you got the actual facts upside down, amiga. Chill out and read what the man actually said. A |
|
12 Sep 08 - 01:05 AM (#2438015) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: mg Genie..I totally disagree with you. When I heard what he had said I went, oh no, he couldn't have. Nobody had to connect any dots for me. Now, again, I do not believe it was intentional. I do not think it was conscious. I believe he is a gentleman. But I do think it was shocking, seeing as she had just made the comment about the pit bull with lipstick. It was quite possibly a Freudian slip. It could have been a simple coincidence or gaffe. If she had not had the lipstick comment, and he had said the lipstick on the pig, not a big deal. To me, it instantly linked. It is not false outrage. It is real outrage to something that was not meant to be offensive. And it is not an expression I am familiar with..I have probably heard it in my lifetime, but it is not common to my experience. I thought it was something he had made up. So again, I do not think he meant any disrespect, but because of the timing, I think it was a big booboo on his part. I think he should just briefly have said I meant no offense, it is an expression I have used often (which I think he has now said) and others, including McCain have used it. I didn't connect it with Gov. Palin's joke, but I can see how others could have. And she shoudl have graciously said, no problem. I know you didn't mean to say it on purpose. mg |
|
12 Sep 08 - 01:26 AM (#2438018) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Mary, I don't think it was a Freudian slip at all, given how commonly that metaphor has been used in the political scene for a long time, including the past year or two. That said, since Palin had used a different "lipstick on an animal" metaphor so recently, it would have been better if he'd thought ahead how those words were likely to be perceived by some of his own supporters and grabbed by his opponents as ammunition. It's kind of like the many common expressions that are about "dark" and "light," which have nothing to do with race but might be perceived otherwise if Obama's opponents used them. I think he clearly was not referring to Palin as the "pig," even subconsciously. If he had her in mind at all -- his remarks were about McCain or about the joint ticket -- in his metaphor, she was the "lipstick" on the "pig" of the ticket's policies. It would have been better if he'd used a different metaphor -- though I can't think of a good substitute. But since the media have made such a brouhaha about it, I'd like to see Obama and the Dems RUN WITH IT. Make it utterly clear that McCain and Palin are trying to put "lipstick" on the "pig" of the Bush-Cheney-Rove tactics and policies that they continue to embrace. G : ) |
|
12 Sep 08 - 02:21 AM (#2438033) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos "HERE'S THE QUESTION voters should be asking themselves this week: Just how stupid does the McCain-Palin campaign think I am? The answer: Dumb enough to hoodwink with charges so contrived and cynical they make your teeth ache. Let's start with the most insidious of the assertions: that Barack Obama has supported teaching "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners. The McCain campaign has put up an ad making that claim, citing legislation Obama voted for as an Illinois state senator. Actually, the intent wasn't to teach young kids all about sex, but rather how to recognize improper physical contact, says Kelvy Brown, legislative coordinator for the Chicago Department of Public Health, which backed the bill. "It was about teaching them what's not appropriate when it comes to touching, fondling, those types of things," Brown said. Further, the 2003 legislation stipulated that any school sex education program had to be "age and developmentally appropriate" and have a parental opt out. As the nonpartisan campaign watchdog FactCheck.org has made clear, this is a thoroughly dishonest ad. No matter. The McCain campaign has shown it's ready and willing to say preposterous things to win. Now, it's true the Obama camp has been guilty of some distortions of its own. Still, it's the McCain team that has made leveling false or misleading accusations its modus operandi. Witness this week's other foray into flimflam: the charge that Obama had called GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin a porcine politico on Tuesday by saying "you can put lipstick on a pig - it's still a pig." That expression is one that McCain himself has used a number of times, most notably to criticize Hillary Clinton's 2007 healthcare proposal. And in context, it's clear Obama invoked the phrase to portray McCain's policies as a continuation of the Bush administration's, and not to disparage Palin. Indeed, the notion that it was a barb belittling Palin is so self-evidently absurd that Republican Mike Huckabee refused to play along. "It's an old expression," he told Fox News' Sean Hannity. "I do not think he was referring to Sarah Palin." Of course he wasn't. And yet, the McCain camp quickly put up a Web ad portraying it as a sexist remark, and on Wednesday McCain spokespeople and surrogates served up similar accusations of disrespect on TV. Pressed about those claims on MSNBC, McCain senior policy adviser Nancy Pfotenhauer stumbled into a revealing moment. "It doesn't matter what the media thinks," she said. "What matters is what the American people think." Translation: If we can dupe voters into believing Obama disparaged Palin, we can score political points. Sadly, one of the McCain allies pushing this manufactured controversy has been former Massachusetts acting governor Jane Swift, who on a Tuesday McCain campaign conference call flatly accused Obama of calling Palin a pig. On Wednesday, I noted to Swift that a reading of Obama's remarks simply doesn't lend credence to that charge. And, further, that McCain has used the same expression himself. Well, replied Swift, Palin's convention speech joke about lipstick meant the word was very much associated with her in the public mind. "If it didn't intend to bring her into it, why would you choose that particular" formulation? she asked. What's more, she said, some in the crowd listening to Obama had also taken his comment as a reference to Palin. Think those arguments are flimsy? Well, consider her further contention: "Nobody but Barack Obama . . . can know what he intended," but the fact that she and others had found it offensive meant that he should "make the whole thing go away by saying, 'I shouldn't have said it.' " So, let's see: Obama employs an everyday expression to make a legitimate political argument. His opponent's camp then strains an Achilles in a ludicrous attempt to twist his comment into a sexist insult. And now, to end the controversy, Obama should apologize? There's some pretzel logic for you. McCain and Swift are the ones who should apologize. Voters, meanwhile, should be insulted that the McCain campaign is trying to peddle them this kind of transparent trumpery." Scott Lehigh on Boston.com |
|
12 Sep 08 - 03:22 AM (#2438065) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: mg No. Contraire. It is not an everyday expression everywhere in America. I have pretty much not consciously ever heard it...it is not an expression many people are familiar with. They did not have to have a ludicrous attempt to twist the comment into anything because she had just made the lipstick on the pitbull comment. It was right there. It was a primal wham. Unintended to be sure but it is totally obvious to me that this was a major oops moment. He should have just quickly explained himself and gone on with a simple apology, which should have been quickly accepted. mg |
|
12 Sep 08 - 03:24 AM (#2438066) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Actually, I did hear the quote, several times....if you think he meant it ONLY as he 'innocently' said he meant it AFTERWORDS, then, you missed the double en tender that it was supposed to be, that actually was pretty slick. Just think, he could have said, 'Lipstick on a pit bull, is still a bitch'..... Now get back in your bottle.... |
|
12 Sep 08 - 03:31 AM (#2438068) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton Seems to me the Dems have once again snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I Obama really wants CHANGE, he should have said so in words that the ordinary voters could understand, like Mrs Palin did. Or perhaps Mr Obama doesn't want to be too specific about what sort of CHANGE he wants......might upset the people who pull his strings...Ake |
|
12 Sep 08 - 03:49 AM (#2438076) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Here here!! Ake...Bravo! Actually he also doesn't was to 'inform' the voting public, what the 'Change' is....his numbers would plummet even further....but I don't think his rah-rah pom pom crowd, would grasp it, as they are star struck groupies...thinking they are so 'inside' and hip. Nothing is further from the truth....but what the hell?....they just don't(or can't) get it. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 03:51 AM (#2438077) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Mary, with all due respect, the fact that you aren't conscious of having heard that expression does not mean that "it is not an expression many people are familiar with." I found many, many fairly recent examples of the use of the expression in politics and the public eye just by googling it (and I posted the link here). Several of those were from this election cycle and/or from Presidential candidates who ran this year. I've also seen a number of polical cartoons using that metaphoric imagery. Usually there's no woman or animal actually being referred to. Now I agree that the CROWD at Obama's rally took it as a double entendre. It's also conceivable that this particular metaphor came to his mind more quickly, unconsciously, because the word "lipstick" had been used so prominently during the RNC speech by Palin. Watching the video of Barack making that speech, it did look like he was kind of speaking off the cuff, rather than spouting memorized words. He is probably very familiar with the expression, just as John McCain is. Upon hearing the crowd's reaction, Obama was quick to add another metaphor, that you can't expect an old fish to stop smelling bad "after 8 years" (an obvious reference to Dubya's policies) just because you wrap it in newspaper. (Some in the anti-Obama camp went so far as to label the "smelly fish" metaphor as anti-woman too. Talk about reaching!) Everyone in the public eye is capable of saying something that can be taken out of context and used against them in the court of public opinion -- especially people who have to give interviews and do town halls all the time. But one thing Obama is not is stupid. I cannot imagine that he deliberately chose verbal imagery as a sexist insult to any woman, when it would have been easy to predict how his opponents and/or the media would pounce on it. As we've pointed out over and over, it IS a common expression and a very apt one for the point he was making about McCain's policies. Every once in a while I encounter some new word, phrase, or piece of information that's totally new to me but that just about everyone else seems to think is old hat. I expect that's what's going on here, with you not being aware of how common this expression is. Genie : ) |
|
12 Sep 08 - 03:58 AM (#2438082) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Now I agree that the CROWD at Obama's rally took it as a double entendre. It's also conceivable that this particular metaphor came to his mind more quickly, unconsciously, because the word "lipstick" had been used so prominently during the RNC speech by Palin. yeah, it wasn't HIS fault he was playing to the crowd.....and 95% of forest fires are caused by trees! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 03:59 AM (#2438084) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton HEY GUEST!.....Go look at the information just posted by Amos in the other "what does Palin remind you of" thread. Its about the succession of American States and the views of Americans on the "broken" US form of government. Very interesting and very big of Amos to post it...Ake |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:04 AM (#2438091) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ake, I just looked...you mean about the wart hog?...I replied.. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:05 AM (#2438092) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton "Lipstick"?....seemed a good idea at time by some little Dem script writer. In reality..."It's politics STUPID!!!!" |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:07 AM (#2438094) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton Sorry guest ....I meant the "Presidential campaign" thread! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:13 AM (#2438099) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hands on my hips...tapping my foot....you mean I have to go look again???....wagging my head...awwww...ok(actually I read it earlier) I couldn't believe my eyes, that Amos posted it...AND STILL LIKES OBAGMA! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 05:35 AM (#2438142) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Richard Bridge Assuming just for the moment that Obama did intend to use it to refer to Palin, it's a really good "gotcha" and there's nothing wrong with it. The hullabaloo is about as daft as the fact that my step-daughter when working for Intel got a disciplinary for saying "Merry Christmas". Quite rightly she told them where to stick it. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 07:33 AM (#2438219) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger I think they have a bunch of Hindus working at Intel! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 09:39 AM (#2438303) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: WFDU - Ron Olesko If they are this upset by an old expression, think how quickly they would implode on a world stage when they will be compared to much worse than a pig. McCain and Palin do not have the cojones to serve in the executive office. Plain and simple and obvious to anyone with open eyes. They do not have the experience to deal with this little crap and the bigger issues will destroy them. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 10:13 AM (#2438324) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger Oh Bummer got all jacked out of shape when McCain proclaimed himself to be the agent of change, and there were no pigs involved. Imagine how he would self-destruct when confronted with bigger issues. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 11:36 AM (#2438399) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos For some reason every time I see that stout-faced woman's picture, I keep thinking of a pig wearing lipstick!! Is this bad? Am I losing it? Help me, doctor. Actually, on reflection, I think there are certain attributes that make the connection appear. One is a certain tendency to be porcine in her appetite for Federal money, and in her savage, almost grunting, defense of her own wallow and her swinish suspicion of anyone not vowing loyalty to her and her banners. Another is the highly energized advance to the trough, driven solely by appetitie, and never by reflection. Another is a certain pretension to being more "ordinary" than she actually is being. I can imagine Miss Piggy pirouetting and calling out "Moi is a hockey-maman and moi is also a moose-chasseur!" Trying to wedge that down-home profile into the highest offices in the land is pretty piggish. A |
|
12 Sep 08 - 11:38 AM (#2438402) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos "Since Sarah Palin was added to the Republican ticket, there have been multiple reports about her skepticism regarding the science behind global warming. Last night, during her ABC interview, Palin was pressed on her beliefs, and got a little defensive. "Show me where I have ever said that there's absolute proof that nothing that man has ever conducted or engaged in has had any effect or no effect on climate change. I have not said that," Palin told Charlie Gibson. Well, what has she said? The AP takes a closer look, and concludes Palin's remarks to ABC are "at odds with her previous statements." [I]n the past Palin has said she does not believe global warming is caused by human activity. She has told the Internet news site Newsmax, "A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location.... I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made."In an interview with a Fairbanks newspaper within the last year, Palin said: "I'm not an Al Gore, doom-and-gloom environmentalist blaming the changes in our climate on human activity." ABC cited the interview as being at odds with her statement. I can appreciate Palin being embarrassed about her beliefs now; she's obviously well outside the scientific mainstream. If I were her, in my first national television interview, I'd be tempted to distance myself from right-wing talking points, too. But Palin's record is Palin's record, and the fact remains that she's so far out there, she's rejected the connection between global warming and human activity. Indeed, she's done so more than once. This not only tells us something important about Palin's understanding of public policy, it also tells us a great deal about how she perceives and considers evidence that runs counter to her ideology." (CBS) |
|
12 Sep 08 - 11:49 AM (#2438411) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton My god! What's wrong with you lot? This isn't about who's right or wrong, this is about getting (x)million morons to vote for you! Once elected they will all act in the same way regardless. Look what the Dems did when they got a majority in the two houses. Congratulated Bush on what a good job he was doin'!! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 12:30 PM (#2438449) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity From: Amos Date: 12 Sep 08 - 11:36 AM For some reason every time I see that stout-faced woman's picture, I keep thinking of a pig wearing lipstick!! Is this bad? Am I losing it? Help me, doctor. The answer is...YES!, actually you never had, what you think you're losing... Ake, ..You got the picture!! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 12:45 PM (#2438478) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Bobert Here's the bottom line, "my friends": Until McCain finds that distortions and lieing are hurting his poll numbers he will continue to distort and lie... I mean, why not??? The sex-ed for kindergarteners is a lie, the Obama tax proposal is a lie, the lipstcik on a pig is a lie but like who is calling them on these lies other than Obama himself??? The press, in general, isn't... The heavies in the Democratic Party want no part of calling McCain a liar... Face it, there is only so much of a load that Obama can carry... Wgat really bugs me is that the press has knuckled under to the usual elction cycle crybaby act of the Repubs over this misconception of it being "The Liberal Media" and until the media gets it's sea legs it's gonna run scared of pissin' off McCain... And, of course, if they keep their collective media heads in the sand then it is going to make an Obama vitory very difficult... B~ |
|
12 Sep 08 - 12:52 PM (#2438487) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk "This isn't about who's right or wrong, this is about getting (x)million morons to vote for you!" Exactly. ;-) |
|
12 Sep 08 - 12:54 PM (#2438488) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel Good point bobert, I've said it manyt imes in many ways myself. There are ~ 125,344,754,599,088,222 bottom lines one of those botom lines is 'Sarah is every bit as intelligent as George W Bush -----But she is far more religious! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 12:56 PM (#2438491) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel She promises not to blink in an emergency |
|
12 Sep 08 - 01:06 PM (#2438503) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity From: Donuel Date: 12 Sep 08 - 12:56 PM She promises not to blink in an emergency Well. at least she can see an emergency! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 01:41 PM (#2438543) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger That's why she wears those weirded-out glasses that everybody else is trying to buy up now. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 01:56 PM (#2438555) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos NEW YORK (AFP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday denied his barrage of hardball negative advertisements against Democratic rival Barack Obama amounted to "lies." The Arizona Senator defended his campaign's tactics against Obama, which claimed his opponent called Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin a "pig" and advocated teaching sex education to kindergarten children. "Actually, they are not lies," McCain said on the ABC television chat show "The View." The Obama campaign had argued that McCain's camp deliberately misinterpreted Obama's recent comment that Republican claims to represent change were like putting "lipstick on a pig" as a sexist remark aimed at Palin. "He shouldn't have said it. He chooses his words very carefully, this is a tough campaign," McCain said. Earlier this week, the McCain campaign debuted an attack ad claiming that as a state lawmaker in Illinois, Obama backed a bill to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners." "Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family," the narrator of the advertisement said. In reality, the legislation allowed local schools to teach "age-appropriate" sex education, meaning that kindergarten kids could be warned about sexual predators and inappropriate touching but not taught about sex. The Obama camp hit back angrily at McCain over the advertisement. "It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why." |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:04 PM (#2438674) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Ake, Barack Obama seldom uses speech writers, especially for town halls and such. (It's Palin and McCain who read their speeches from teleprompters. Maybe Biden too, but Obama writes his own speeches - and is also not afraid to speak off the cuff.) As for Obama not wanting to be too specific about what sort of CHANGE he wants," give me a break. If you listen to his DNC acceptance speech and to his actual interviews and press conferences and town halls, you'll see he is quite specific about many aspects of his policies. Those who disagree with his vision do criticize him for those specifics, but he's not hesitant to give them. This contrasts quite sharply with most of McCain's and Palin's promises of "reform" and "change" and standing up for America. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:05 PM (#2438675) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton Who cares what politicians say about one another. I'd rather read what YOU think Amos! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:08 PM (#2438677) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,whatif Why don't the democrats just do a television ad with Palin's "pitbull in lipstick" comment and McCain's "bomb bomb bomb..bomb bomb Iran" song, along with the caption "Just What We Need, More Mad Dogs In The Whitehouse" and play it until election day. Talk about scare tactics! |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:36 PM (#2438702) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: John MacKenzie This says it all. XG |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:41 PM (#2438707) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stringsinger This is a total distraction signifying nothing. Don't look at the man under the hood in the corner. We sure as hell are not in Kansas any more. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:42 PM (#2438709) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie I'd like that T-shirt a lot more, John, if it had caricatures of McCain and Palin trying to MARKET a huge lipstick-sporting pig captioned "Change and Reform Policies." Genie |
|
12 Sep 08 - 04:49 PM (#2438715) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton Sorry Genie...cross posted. If Obama doesn't use a script writer, I think its well past time that he did. His form of words on the "lipstick" issue, If accidental, were of the magnitude of a pile up on a motorway and have rebounded big time. Either he was being deliberately offensive or he made a serious mistake in what he decided to say. I have heard many of his speeches, and for someone challenging an incompetent, stumbling government, he seems reticent, vague, other-worldly. He does not appear to have the conviction to appeal to working class Americans with no political affiliations. Remember we on Mudcat are mainly of the chattering classes, psuedo intellectuals who relate to the fairly tales spun by Mr Obama, but even genuine intellectuals DON'T WIN ELECTIONS....Ake |
|
12 Sep 08 - 05:56 PM (#2438760) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: dick greenhaus Akenaton- Do you suffer from a listening disability? |
|
12 Sep 08 - 06:08 PM (#2438775) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos Oh, hogwash-- it was a commonly use dmetaphor, used to describe a deep and fundamental flaw in the claims McCain wa smaking./ What is a disgusting pileup, and a pisspoor reflection on the mindsets of media and public, is that they McCain camp managed to avoid the ACTUAL issue by screaming about insults that never happened. This is the kind of demagoguery and rhetoric that is beneath contempt and contributes to the mass stupidity of the American people. A |
|
12 Sep 08 - 06:30 PM (#2438797) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Emma B Mr. Favreau, or Favs, as everyone calls him, leads a team of two other young speechwriters: 26-year-old Adam Frankel, who worked with John F. Kennedy's adviser and speechwriter Theodore C. Sorensen on his memoirs, and Ben Rhodes, who, at 30, calls himself the "elder statesman" of the group and who helped write the Iraq Study Group report as an assistant to Lee H. Hamilton. Together they are working for a politician who is known for his speaking ability. "Barack trusts him," said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's chief campaign strategist. "And Barack doesn't trust too many folks with that — the notion of surrendering that much authority over his own words." Mr. Favreau had risen to a job as a speechwriter on the Kerry campaign, but by then was unemployed. He was, he said, "broke, taking advantage of all the happy-hour specials I could find in Washington." Robert Gibbs, Mr. Obama's communications director, had known Mr. Favreau during the Kerry campaign, and recommended him as a writer. The trick of speechwriting, if you will, is making the client say your brilliant words while somehow managing to make it sound as though they issued straight from their own soul," said the writer Christopher Buckley, who was a speechwriter for the first President Bush. "Imagine putting the words 'Ask not what your country can do for you' into the mouth of Ron Paul, and you can see the problem." Many Democratic candidates have attempted to evoke both John and Robert Kennedy, but Senator Obama seems to have had more success than most. It helps that Mr. Obama seems to have the élan that John Kennedy had, not to mention a photogenic family. For his inspiration, Mr. Favreau said, "I actually read a lot of Bobby" Kennedy. "I see shades of J.F.K., R.F.K.," he said, and then added, "King." from the New York Times 'Fashion and Style' article January 20, 2008 |
|
12 Sep 08 - 06:46 PM (#2438816) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Ake, it's not like McCain, Palin, Bush, and others don't from time to time use a word or phrase that can be taken the wrong way, especially out of context. I don't think Obama's use of that phrase was that much of a faux pas -- as long as he doesn't back down and "apologize" to someone who wasn't even the object of his point. He needs to stick to his guns and ridicule McCain and some in the media for ASSUMING that when he said "lipstick on a pig" he was talking about the Governor of Alaska. |
|
12 Sep 08 - 06:50 PM (#2438818) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Emma, I didn't say Obama never uses the service of any speechwriters. I believe he does run things by some, as advisors. But he did write nearly all of his acceptance speech and other major speeches he's given, and he does not routinely memorize or read speeches written for him, the way Reagan, Bush, and most other politicians have done (including Palin's speech at the RNC). |
|
12 Sep 08 - 07:27 PM (#2438838) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Emma B Genie, maybe you should read the rest of that article Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter.......... |
|
12 Sep 08 - 07:36 PM (#2438844) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stilly River Sage Amazing how long people can keep arguing about something as unimportant as a throw-away remark that was unrelated but tied away to a throw-away joke. Freudian slip, not a Freudian slip, let it go. There's important stuff going on and you're wasting all of your energy on this. "It's the Economy, Stupid!" needs to come back into use. Art, sorry to take so long to come back to this--the line I typed in was actually printed on a card from PPNT that came in the mail. That's how I got to the web site. SRS |
|
13 Sep 08 - 12:17 AM (#2438966) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Here's an article from MediaMatters.org that explains one way Barack's words words were cut, spliced, and twisted. =========== Thu, Sep 11, 2008 5:30pm ETS ... Summary: In a New England Cable News video posted on the Boston Globe website, two comments by Sen. Barack Obama are spliced together, falsely suggesting that his comment that "[y]ou can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig" immediately followed a reference to Gov. Sarah Palin. In fact, the "lipstick" comment immediately followed Obama's comments about Sen. John McCain's policies and political tactics. In a New England Cable News (NECN) video posted on the Boston Globe website, two comments by Sen. Barack Obama at a September 9 campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia, are spliced together, falsely suggesting that his comment that "[y]ou can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig" immediately followed a reference to Gov. Sarah Palin. The NECN video shows Obama remarking that the "[t]he only [state] I haven't been to [during his presidential campaign] now is Alaska, and I realize now -- maybe I should have been up there." The video then cuts directly to a clip of Obama saying, "But you know, you can't -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig." But the "lipstick" comment did not immediately follow a reference to Alaska or Palin; the "lipstick" comment immediately followed remarks Obama made about Sen. John McCain's policies and political tactics. The video posted on the Globe site omits entirely the comments criticizing McCain's policies and tactics, which consist of at least 65 words. The NECN video, as posted on the Globe website, includes the following remarks by Obama at the September 9 campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia: OBAMA: Now, Lebanon, I've been running for president for about 19 months now. That's a long time. That means that there are babies who've been born and are now walking and talking since I started running for president. And so, as I travel around the country, people always ask me, "What have you learned from, you know, all these travels and meeting so many different people?" And I tell them, "Well, first of all, I've learned that the United States, it's big. I mean, I've been to 49 states now. The only one I haven't been to is Alaska, and I realize now -- maybe I should have gone up there. [splice] But you know, you can't -- you know, you can put lipstick on a pig; it's still a pig. A video clip posted on YouTube contains Obama's comments directly preceding his use of the term "lipstick on a pig." The NECN video includes only the bolded remarks: [posted here in all caps] OBAMA: "Let's just list this for a second. John McCain says he's about change, too. Except -- and so I guess his whole angle is, "Watch out, George Bush, except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics. We're really gonna shake things up in Washington." That's not change. That's just calling some -- the same thing, something different. BUT YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T -- YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT LIPSTICK ON A PIG; IT'S STILL A PIG." PolitiFact.com wrote of Obama's lipstick on a pig comments ... "It is simply impossible to view the complete remarks by Obama and conclude that he's making a veiled and unsavory reference to Palin. Her name never is used in the preceding sentence. In fact, it's hard to see how one could interpret Obama's lipstick-on-a-pig remark as referring directly to McCain, either. We think it's very clear that Obama was saying McCain's effort to call himself the "candidate of change" is like putting lipstick on a pig, trying to dress up a bad idea to look better. Agree or disagree with Obama's point, but his remark wasn't the smear that McCain's people have tried to make it. If anyone's doing any smearing, it's the McCain campaign and its outrageous attempt to distort the facts. Did Obama call Palin a pig? No, and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong. =========================== |
|
13 Sep 08 - 12:29 AM (#2438971) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Interesting article, Emma. But if you take it to mean Obama merely rehearses and reads speeches written for him by a professional speech writer, that contradicts information I've found from other pretty reliable sources. Of course, it doesn't say that. It sounds like Barack collaborates with this guy on his speeches, providing his own ideas and even some of his own words but getting help honing the wording -- something I agree the very reflective, analytical and rather professorial Obama would need to work to counter. I'm thinking back to the DNC of 2004, when Obama wowed and inspired millions with his keynote speech. If he had a speechwriter helping him write that one, it would seem it wasn't the same one he has now. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 04:30 AM (#2439028) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton Genie...and any others who might be interested. The giveaway, was the audiance reaction to the word "lipstick". Did Obama seem a little startled by that reaction?.....Or is he just a very good actor? To those who think this episode is unimportant, think again. How many US elections are won or lost on the publicity generated by such "unimportant episodes". The appointment of Mrs Palin was a masterstroke by the Repubs, Obama must be so careful not to patronise or insult her, yet Mrs Palin can do or say what she pleases, short of outright personal abuse. Mrs Palin seems to understand what the heart, (not the mind) of America wants to hear! At the end of the day you get the government that you deserve....Ake |
|
13 Sep 08 - 05:28 AM (#2439050) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Of course it was a stroke of genius. Of evil genius that puts winning an election above the welfare of the US citizens, the nation's survival, and even the interests of the world at large. But this ruse only works to the extent that the corporate infotainment "news" media let them get by with it. Regardless of underlying motive, what Barack Obama actually said was in no way a reference to anyone as a "pig." It was a reference to McCain's -- or the McCain/Palin ticket's -- charade of standing for "reforming" Washington as "putting lipstick on a pig." The actual speech is out there for people to read or watch. Instead, too many in on TV and radio persist in twisting and distorting it and making an unwarranted BFD (big f*cking distraction). |
|
13 Sep 08 - 06:09 AM (#2439068) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Emma B Genie, the 2004 keynote speech was, it is agreed, 'largely' Obamas and took several months to write. 'As for what the speakers say — well that's also careful stagecraft. The main task for most speakers is to offer a simple biographical introduction to a large national audience. The introduction is as much about introducing viewers to the party as it is to any one speaker. According to political historian Costas Panagopoulos, "For the 10 to 15 percent of Americans who casually pay attention to politics, this is when you put your best foot forward and your best argument." The national convention committees review the speeches of all selected speakers, big names and small. Leading up to the 2004 DNC, some 200 separate speeches were vetted in the speechwriting "boiler room," A similar process exists for the GOP. The speechwriters are looking for consistency with the overall message and a lack of repetition or overlap with other speakers or the nominee. Depending on the quality of the original text, speechwriters can edit liberally, adding rhetorical touches or specific information about the convention nominee, or (as with Obama's 2004 speech) they may leave the speeches largely untouched' Dayo Olopade writing on keynote speeches last month This time around however Obama hasn't had the luxury of time As his top strategist David Axelrod stated "The difference here is, you know, he's got a few other things going," His notes have therefore been "circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau — a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith." |
|
13 Sep 08 - 11:01 AM (#2439178) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity At the end of the day you get the government that you deserve....Ake True..but we love it that way....until, the noose tightens, then we get offered another pre-planned remedy!!!! |
|
13 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM (#2439182) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq "How many US elections are won or lost on the publicity generated by such "unimportant episodes" Well, Republican Senator George Allen said the word "macaca" which he thought was another term for "BS". The press destroyed him and handed a relatively safe GOP seat to the Dems, gaving them the complete control of Congress. So, from now on it should be Barack "Lipstick on a Pig" Obama. The partisan new media would do that to their boogiemen the hated Re-pubbies, so why not do it to the Dem. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 11:25 AM (#2439185) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity pdq, I think you are pretty small minded, judging from your post! |
|
13 Sep 08 - 11:33 AM (#2439191) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger Actually, I thing pdq is right. Look at the last several American elections. What turned votes for the winner. Dukakis in a tank, John Kerry windsurfing, Dan Quayle not spelling potato, Al Gore sighing, Ronald Reagan lip-synching "There you go again" off his tele-prompter, Howard Dean's scream... People seem to be persuaded by these kinds of things. Maybe "Lipstick on a Pig" will be Obama's "potatoe". |
|
13 Sep 08 - 11:41 AM (#2439196) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq "Lipstick on a Pig" Obama "Potatoe Dan" Quayle "Broccoli George" Bush "Peanuthead" Carter George "Macaca" Allen Blah! Blah! Blah" Our eneies are laughing at us. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 12:43 PM (#2439247) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos As we watched Sarah Palin on TV the last couple of days, we kept wondering what on earth John McCain was thinking. The Board Blog Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers. Go to The Board » If he seriously thought this first-term governor — with less than two years in office — was qualified to be president, if necessary, at such a dangerous time, it raises profound questions about his judgment. If the choice was, as we suspect, a tactical move, then it was shockingly irresponsible. It was bad enough that Ms. Palin's performance in the first televised interviews she has done since she joined the Republican ticket was so visibly scripted and lacking in awareness. What made it so much worse is the strategy for which the Republicans have made Ms. Palin the frontwoman: win the White House not on ideas, but by denigrating experience, judgment and qualifications. The idea that Americans want leaders who have none of those things — who are so blindly certain of what Ms. Palin calls "the mission" that they won't even pause for reflection — shows a contempt for voters and raises frightening questions about how Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin plan to run this country. One of the many bizarre moments in the questioning by ABC News's Charles Gibson was when Ms. Palin, the governor of Alaska, excused her lack of international experience by sneering that Americans don't want "somebody's big fat résumé maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state." We know we were all supposed to think of Joe Biden. But it sure sounded like a good description of Mr. McCain. Those decades of experience earned the Arizona senator the admiration of people in both parties. They are why he was our preferred candidate in the Republican primaries. The interviews made clear why Americans should worry about Ms. Palin's thin résumé and lack of experience. Consider her befuddlement when Mr. Gibson referred to President Bush's "doctrine" and her remark about having insight into Russia because she can see it from her state. But that is not what troubled us most about her remarks — and, remember, if they were scripted, that just means that they reflect Mr. McCain's views all the more closely. Rather, it was the sense that thoughtfulness, knowledge and experience are handicaps for a president in a world populated by Al Qaeda terrorists, a rising China, epidemics of AIDS, poverty and fratricidal war in the developing world and deep economic distress at home. Ms. Palin talked repeatedly about never blinking. When Mr. McCain asked her to run for vice president? "You have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission," she said, that "you can't blink." Fighting terrorism? "We must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target." Her answers about why she had told her church that President Bush's failed policy in Iraq was "God's plan" did nothing to dispel our concerns about her confusion between faith and policy. Her claim that she was quoting a completely unrelated comment by Lincoln was absurd. This nation has suffered through eight years of an ill-prepared and unblinkingly obstinate president. One who didn't pause to think before he started a disastrous war of choice in Iraq. One who blithely looked the other way as the Taliban and Al Qaeda regrouped in Afghanistan. One who obstinately cut taxes and undercut all efforts at regulation, unleashing today's profound economic crisis. In a dangerous world, Americans need a president who knows that real strength requires serious thought and preparation. (NYT Editorial) |
|
13 Sep 08 - 12:44 PM (#2439249) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity From: pdq Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:41 AM "Lipstick on a Pig" Obama "Potatoe Dan" Quayle "Broccoli George" Bush "Peanuthead" Carter George "Macaca" Allen Blah! Blah! Blah" Our eneies are laughing at us. Its 'enemies', for what its worth....... Just like what I said. I gave you some important stuff, and you took it to here....see how it works??? |
|
13 Sep 08 - 12:49 PM (#2439255) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey, Bill Clinton was an obscur governor from a largely disregarded state, and he was elevated to 'President'(and a shitty one at that), so why knock Palin??..Sorta hypocritical, don't you think? But thinking isn't part of your program, re-acting by posting bullshit 'news' articles is...whatever 'is means'. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 12:51 PM (#2439258) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity typo...'obscure'....sorry |
|
13 Sep 08 - 12:54 PM (#2439262) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Emma B It's 'obcure' for what it's worth........:) but who really needs to be THAT nit picking? |
|
13 Sep 08 - 12:57 PM (#2439263) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: PoppaGator "...and a shitty one at that" A pretty shitty family man, perhaps, but as President, Clinton presided over eight years of properity and relative peace, and left a large surplus in the US Treasury ~ in stark contrast to his successor. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 01:01 PM (#2439266) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk Yeah, it's ironic. You have similarly scummy and opportunistic name-calling behaviour occurring among both sets of partisan idealogues and they complain that the other guy is doing it...! And if any politician tries to take the high road and not behave that way, he gets accused of being a "wimp" or of being "boring" and he loses public support... It's not just your enemies that are laughing, pdq, it's the whole world laughing at you with your endless and ridiculous election circus. Mind you, it's nervous laughter. We know how dangerous America can be with its oversized military machine and some unstable criminals in command of the government. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 01:03 PM (#2439269) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Emma B he he typos 'r us :) |
|
13 Sep 08 - 01:16 PM (#2439285) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity I posted this on another thread, but my blue clicky thing doesn't work right Yeah, Gator, he was a shitty president! Jeeezuz, Peezuz.....You all act like you are shocked to imagine that your favorite, pet politician has been caught telling a 'lie'!! what is so dumbfounding is you don't seem to realize, is, that most politicians these days are LAWYERS!!...of course they lie! They are all liars that just chose politics!! The problem isn't even all of their views, (which seem to disappear after they are elected, btw)..the problem here, is the never ending corruption of the process, and the concealment of the string pullers, who, in a real world of integrity, would be brought to trial, for treason, among other things. While everybody is worried about Palin vs Obama, nobody is asking, or even talking about the deliberate efforts to dissolve and change our borders, uninspected trucks coming 'across' with God only knows what, inside, and the deliberate, calculated drive to wedge Americans against each other, leading to an attempt, to cause major civil uprisings, so your pals in government can 'step in', (read: move toward fulfilling their agenda) by force, here is what used to be America! You think, (because you were supposed to, btw) that their is a big gap between the Bush's and the Clintons,..like there is a big difference between the Clintons and Obama!..Get fucking serious!!! The Clintons and Bush's go back, decades, as partners in crime, treason for one, and violation of American neutrality, and drugs and arms dealing, and other things, that actually made the news! And for all of you trigger happy arguers, all you have to do is look up Mena, Arkansas, when Bush 41, was VP, (and former head of the CIA, and Billy Boy Clinton was Governor of Arkansas). Even in this 'election' it has been brought out how between Bush and McCain, there is little difference, so I don't need to go on about that, (I hope), and its also been brought out, how very little difference there is between Obama, and Hillarity, WAKE UP!!!!!!! AND WHO IS IT THAT DOESN'T KNOW THIS STUFF??..The Russians? The Chinese??(to whom Clinton sold us out to, both in technology, and in trade, after grand pappa Bush opened up the way) The Iraqis??, The Iranians?(remember Iran-Contra?? read above!), and btw, the present, leader of Iran, was one of the hostage taker organizers, back in the Carter years...You think these people, don't know us in a different light, than we think of ourselves??? We have been lied to for so long, we've just gotten used to it, and quite frankly, enjoy the entertainment of it....and why is it we are lied to??..because, it is the American people who these liars fear!!!!~ This has gotten so obvious, that we have become the laughing stock of the international community,who they also fear, because it is quite clear, that our power has been and still is, in the hands of some very corrupt and evil people....And the notion that this race isn't about race and gender, (now being used to divide us further), is just another example of exploiting shit that everyone is so damned 'political correct' to admit!! Oh yeah, the term 'politically correct' is another term from the Clinton term, that is just used to water down the truth, and to in effect police our very speach...which all of you musicians and writers should be outraged at...but you're not...you're too far duped!!!!!WAKE THE FUCK UP! |
|
13 Sep 08 - 01:31 PM (#2439294) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq "Clinton presided over eight years of properity and relative peace, and left a large surplus in the US Treasury..." This is one of the greatest hoaxes in US history. The closest Clinton came to spending less than the government took in was in 2000 and we still added 22 billion to the National Debt that fiscal year. The National Debt has not gone down for at least 40 years. Had it not been for a conservative shift in Congress in 1994, Clinton would have run debts in the 235 billion range since that is what his first budget propoasls called for. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 01:55 PM (#2439308) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq I have been trying to check facts, but I believe that the US National Debt has not gone down since 1957. That is not a partisan statement, just an attempt to bring a few facts into the mythological world that the mass media have created. A true surplus, as represented to the US people, would bring the National Debt down. Clinton's claim involves at least two major accounting gimmicks on top of a pile of new media BS. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 02:02 PM (#2439315) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Amos, that's a great blog! Do you have a link to it? |
|
13 Sep 08 - 02:44 PM (#2439342) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie [[From: pdq Date: 13 Sep 08 - 11:41 AM "Lipstick on a Pig" Obama "Potatoe Dan" Quayle "Broccoli George" Bush "Peanuthead" Carter George "Macaca" Allen Blah! Blah! Blah" Our enemies are laughing at us. ]] Not just our enemies -- our friends too. To the extent that our media focus on red herrings, trivialities, and, in some cases, totally bum raps. Yes, too many of our "low-information voters" buy into this stuff, but that's often because they don't have time to do a lot of real fact-finding (newspapers, magazines, blogs, internet searches) and the only "information" they have access to is 1) TV "news" channels, 2) talk radio, with 90% to 100% being right-wing ideologues in most locations, and 3) campaign advertising, which is mostly drivel, empty images, or even lies. But let's look at the examples you gave, pdq. a. "Potatoe Dan" Quayle: Most analysts seem to pin Bush 41's defeat mostly on his broken "read my lips: no new taxes" promise -- with a little help from Ross Perot siphoning off more votes from him than from Clinton. I seriously doubt Dan Quayle had much to do with it. (We had already written Quayle off as an airhead pretty boy, especially after Lloyd Bentsen's "You, sir, are no Jack Kennedy" quip in the debates, but G H B Bush won in 1988 anyway.) b. "Broccoli George" Bush: see "a." c. "Peanuthead" Carter: Jimmy Carter was way ahead in the polls in 1980 in the early fall, despite the gas lines, his too-colorful kin, and the "charisma" of his challenger. What really killed Carter's re-election chances was the behind the scenes machinations of Republican operatives to get Khomeini (sp?) to hold the American hostages until after the election (actually releasing them as Reagan was being sworn in), in exchange for weapons. Carter's reelection chances were killed by the "hostage crisis." d. "Lipstick on a Pig" Obama: It is not too late to dispel the myth that Obama was referring, even obliquely, to Palin (or McCain) as a "pig." Clearly, he was referring to the same old Republican neocon policies of the past 8 years masquerading as "change" and "reform" under the banner of McCain (and/or McCain/Palin). And if Obama loses, I seriously doubt this will be the reason. Not only are there much more serious lies being told about him and his voting record, but there are well-orchestrated election fraud strategies being implemented by the Republicans in swing states as we speak (many involving systematic disenfranchisement of voters in largely Democratic-leaning areas). By the way, those election-rigging schemes were largely responsible for the narrow "defeats" of both Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom had been targets of these petty and/or deceitful image-damaging media blitzes (Kerry shown wind surfing or duck hunting in camouflage gear; Al Gore being falsely accused of saying he invented the internet; the media replaying Gore sighing and rolling his eyes, even when he had pretty clearly "won" the actual debate or at least held his own; etc.). Gore officially won the popular vote and, as published in the NY Times in 2001, when all the votes in Florida were eventually counted, he actually got more votes in that state than Bush -- despite losing a couple thousand to "Buchanan" because of the "butterfly ballot" -- no matter which standard for counting was used. And it's still not clear that Kerry really lost in Ohio (despite the lack of voting machines in several key precincts and cities), since most of the provisional ballots there have never been counted and many ballots have (illegally) been destroyed, preventing any true recount. The 2000 and 2004 elections were not the clear, solid defeats for the Dems that the 1988 and 1984 elections were. e. George "Macaca" Allen: Allen wasn't brought down by a single word, much less one taken out of context. I actually thought the more telling part of his comments about and to the young man he called "macaca" was his "Welcome to America, macaca" remark. He revealed an obvious bias and ignorance by assuming that since the young man was dark skinned, he must be a new immigrant (maybe even on a temporary visa?). The young man was a US citizen, who, IIRC, spoke flawless English and may have even been born here. This was a lot more than just using a non PC word. I agree that this was Allen's undoing, but his attitudes and views were not unfairly characterized by the media attention to his totally un-called-for "macaca" comments to a young man in the audience. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 03:04 PM (#2439353) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice "Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama." above quoted from this article, link here: McCain Barbs Stirring Outrages as Distortion |
|
13 Sep 08 - 03:08 PM (#2439357) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq My point was that all of our top politicians should be given a chance to lead and not be brought down by cheap jokes, dirty dticks or an occasional personal public gaffe. We have heard about the regional (Southern) pronunciation of "nuclear" and endless jokes about pretzels. We are told that George W. Bush has a "smirk" on his face and looks like a chimpanzee. One of Clinton's operatives organised a group of people who threw broccoli at george Bush when he was giving campaign speeches. The same people who pull this stuff are demanding that we talk more about policy. Perhaps it is a little too late for that. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 03:12 PM (#2439360) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Big deal1..but we like it that way......(idiots) |
|
13 Sep 08 - 03:16 PM (#2439362) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Guest from Sanity, There is one big difference between the Bush/Cheney administration and the would-be McCain/Palin administration, on the one hand, and the Clinton/Gore administration and the Obama/Biden administration, on the other: SCOTUS -- and the other Federal Courts. Gerald Ford appointed John Paul Stevens. Ronald Reagan appointed both Antonin Scalia and Sandra Day O'Connor, Herbert Walker Bush appointed David Souter and Clarence Thomas, and Bill Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg. (Not sure GHWB knew just how reactionary Thomas was going to be, since Thomas refused to talk about his views, even during his Senate confirmation hearings.) Bush 43 appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito -- both of whom have shown themselves to be further to the extreme Right than even Rehnquist and Scalia on some decisions. McCain has explicitly stated that he would not appoint Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, OR Souter or Justices like them if he becomes President. He has said that he would appoint people like Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. There is no way that Obama would select Justices like those. In fact, he has said Clarence Thomas is the Justice he would most like to not have on the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court and other lifetime Federal Court appointments are going to have a much longer-lasting impact on all aspects of our domestic and international policy and on our economy than any legislation from Congress or Presidential executive order will have. And I think if the Democrats fail to hit that point home to the "undecided" voters and the persuadable, teachable Republican voters, it may be their downfall. They need to spell out exactly how the composition of the courts are likely to affect things like reproductive choice rights, bankruptcy laws, people's right to sue for just compensation when wronged, freedom of expression, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 03:21 PM (#2439365) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie pdq: "The same people who pull this stuff are demanding that we talk more about policy. Perhaps it is a little too late for that." Actually, I think Obama HAS been talking about policy -- at least when he's not forced to comment on the lies being told about him by his opponents (or let them stick). Even his DNC acceptance speech was pretty "workmanlike," dealing with a lot of policy stances and proposals and not being just an inspirational speech. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 03:49 PM (#2439386) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq In my humble opinion, I really believe that Barack Obama is being treated very kindly by both the mass media and the politicos. He has also been very good at acting like he is "above the fray" when it comes to the nasty political bickering. He deserves credit for that. Danger here is that his popularity will collapse if he gets desperate and goes into full attack mode. McCain, on the other hand, has a long history of bipartisan cooperation. He has "walked the walk" not just "talked the talk". He is, without doubt, the most visible member of Congress who is truely willing to work accross the isle. BTW, abortion will be around for decades and decades to come. Reagan said at the beginning of his presidency that he was personally opposed to abortion but that nothing would change during his tenure and he simple avoided the subject for eight years. McCain will do the same. This is not a proper issue on which to decide who becomes president. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 03:56 PM (#2439389) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk Abortion will always be around. It's been around since time immemorial. What else will always be around is the $ySStem's cynical use of the abortion debate to get people all het up and manipulate them in one respect or another. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 04:07 PM (#2439393) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Richard Bridge I respectfully suggest to some of the lunatic right here (not to mention "refugee from sanity") that the international consensus would probably list Carter and Clinton as among if not the best recent US presidents (counting Jack "gonads" Kennedy as not recent). |
|
13 Sep 08 - 04:13 PM (#2439398) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Alice Obama has "walked the walk" of bipartisan co-operation, too, back to the beginning of is career as an elected representative up to his time in the Senate. There are plenty of examples that google will bring up if anyone really wants the facts. If you google "Republicans who worked with Obama", one of the most interesting sites is this one: Republicans for Obama "...Collectively, we have campaigned, worked for, and voted Republican all our lives, but recognize that our Country needs a new kind of leader at this time. While there will always be important issues on which thoughtful Americans will disagree, there are others that cannot be up for debate— our economic prosperity and our standing in the world. Senator Obama has rejected the politics of division and the win-at-all-costs attitude that has hurt our ability to move forward as a nation. While we as Republicans will not always see eye to eye with a President Obama, we know that his politics of competency and unity will lead to a stronger America." |
|
13 Sep 08 - 04:22 PM (#2439402) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey Richard Bridge to No Where, I'm neither Repugnantkin, nor a conservative...thanks for your astute observations! If you read my post, earlier, you'd see where I stood on both the Clintons and the Bushes...or maybe you did and didn't understand it....par for the course! |
|
13 Sep 08 - 04:44 PM (#2439418) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: SharonA Back to the subject of the Republican party's outcry about Obama's "Lipstick on a Pig" comment as being an attack on Palin: I thought it was the most reprehensible race-baiting that they've pulled thus far in this campaign. Yes, I said race-baiting. The message rang out loud and clear: "It's alright for our good ol' sons to say that about one o'them thar Democrat wimmen -- they deserve it -- but how dare that uppity [n-word] say that about one of OUR wimmen!?! You gonna let that boy get away with that???" Quite obviously, they are going after the bigot vote. The Republican campaign leaders know very well that they're taking Obama's words out of context, and they know very well that Obama was not talking about Palin at the time he uttered the well-known saying. They know very well that McCain used it as a direct slam at Hillary Clinton. And they don't care. They aren't concerned with accuracy or fairness. They only want to tap into deep-seated racial hatred that the more bigoted US citizens are sick of being expected to suppress. The Republicans don't want these people to vote with their minds, or even with their hearts (except perhaps the blackest parts of their hearts), but with their nooses and their burning crosses. When I heard the news about how they were spinning what Obama said, I felt like I was watching that scene from "To Kill a Mockingbird" during that farce of a trial, where the black man was villified for his innocent action even though everyone in town knew what kind of a woman his accuser was, knew that his testimony about her actions was truthful and that hers was a lie, knew that she had been all over him and not the other way 'round... but felt they had to protect their race and their society against even an imagined incursion by the black man, even though they'd have to deal with disciplining the white woman after the trial and putting her in her place. If McCain pulls off this farce and wins this election, it won't be because of the votes of women who think Palin is going to change anything -- we know that she would be made invisible except when they wanted to bring her out of a dark room and show her off -- no, it'll be because of the votes of the bigots they've riled up with their lies. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 05:05 PM (#2439430) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie "McCain, on the other hand, has a long history of bipartisan cooperation. He has "walked the walk" not just "talked the talk". He is, without doubt, the most visible member of Congress who is truely willing to work accross the isle." A decade or more ago, yes. In the past 8 years, not so much. McCain has pretty much voted in lock step with the Republicans and Dubya in recent years. He has neither been much of a "maverick" nor a bipartisan "unifier." |
|
13 Sep 08 - 05:10 PM (#2439438) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos 90% agreement with Boosh is not exactly walking the walk, except straight into the seventh Circle of Hell. A |
|
13 Sep 08 - 05:34 PM (#2439457) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Oh well, back to wallowing in Bullshit...thanks guys! |
|
13 Sep 08 - 05:45 PM (#2439465) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Oh, I see, GFS. Talking facts is now "wallowing in BS." Suuuure it is. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 06:02 PM (#2439478) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk What GfS means is, you can't shake your accustomed partisan viewpoint. He is NOT defending the neocons or the Right, he (or she) is pointing out the ludicrous stuff that's going on on BOTH sides of the phony "liberal/conservative" divide that has most of you mesmerized into backing one side or the other (Democrats or Republicans) and once again signing your country away to the people who have BOTH those parties tucked in their vest pocket. As long as you believe in one side or the other of the big Duopoly, you're caught up in the great national illusion that maintains your political status quo. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 06:04 PM (#2439480) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Emma B 'the ludicrous stuff that's going on on BOTH sides of the phony "liberal/conservative" divide' Right on! |
|
13 Sep 08 - 07:22 PM (#2439525) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Ebbie Oh, come on. It is easy to exhort other people to abandon a partisan viewpoint, to pretend one is concerned at how badly they have been misled, hoodwinked, manipulated into their views while not changing one's own viewpoint or methodology or indulgence in vituperation in favor of a more reasoned approach. Janet is a master at it. I'm surprised that you apparently have fallen for it, Little Hawk. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 07:35 PM (#2439534) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk I don't know "Janet", but I don't think that GfS is Janet anyway. I DO think that the ruling political game in America is to keep the public's attention focused blindly forever on the Democrats and Republicans while larger interests behind those two parties and controlling them both run the show. Do you remember when the public voted for the Democrats in Congress in 2006, under the impression (encouraged by the Democratic Party) that the Democrats would end the war in Iraq? They didn't end it. They didn't even try. The public was robbed. No surprise to me. Do you remember when Americans voted Lyndon Johnson in because they thought he was the candidate who would keep America out of foreign wars? He turned the Vietnam War into a huge conflict. You can all continue getting fooled as long as you bounce back and forth betweem Tweedledee and Tweedledum endlessly. Look, if I was there, you know what I'd do now? I'd still vote for Obama, because I think that John McCain and the Republicans are the worst of the two possible choices, and the Republicans deserve to be turfed out for the last 8 years of lunacy. But would I expect it to change things fundamentally in America if the Democrats won? Nope. Even if Obama wanted to bring in some fundamental changes (of a more liberal sort), he couldn't. The sheer weight of the established American $ySStem would not let him. Spaw has said as much in some of his posts lately. Is he too "fooled by Janet"? |
|
13 Sep 08 - 07:36 PM (#2439535) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq Sanitized GUEST is not Janet Ryan, but perhaps you are implying that he would be better served by joining? Just a guess, of course. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 07:39 PM (#2439544) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk Well, at least when you've joined, people know (sort of ) who you are when you post. That helps. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 07:46 PM (#2439549) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq "...because I think that John McCain and the Republicans are the worst of the two possible choices..." The least you liberal arts majors can do is use correct syntax. (big pedantic grin here) |
|
13 Sep 08 - 07:59 PM (#2439555) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk Hey, man...I never even got my degree. I majored in Spanish, but dropped out in first year University. I'm a working class hero. ;-) But I do know some neat phrases like "hijo de la chingada", so it wasn't all for nothing. |
|
13 Sep 08 - 07:59 PM (#2439556) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Bobert Sharon A, Very good and well thought out post... Yeah, between the cutsie posts and usual bickering you have hit the nail square on the head... And that is exactly the McCain formula to win this election... But while I agree that the strategy is to corral the bigots and get them to the polls the more dangerous, and down right sickening, part of this strategy is assuming that there are alot of folks who have fought hard to overcome their racism who only need a little nudge and fear-mongering to take them right back to a time when they were scared to death of black people... Yeah, that is scariest part of this campaign but, hey, I think it was inherent in what was going to occur... Yeah, sure, shame on John McCain but... ...shame on our country, too... B~ |
|
13 Sep 08 - 08:10 PM (#2439560) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk Bobert, they will do anything they can to win. Anything. And if the public is stupid enough to fall for absolute garbage, then absolute garbage is exactly what they will use. This is also true in Canada, but sometimes the garbage backfires. For instance, our presently ruling Conservative Party tried to get mileage out of showing some pictures of a bird (a Puffin) shitting on the Liberal Party candidate for Prime Minister! (as if it would matter who a bird shat on...) It backfired. The public got mad about it, and the Conservative leader (our present prime minister) had to issue an official apology. It was a minor blip in the election, though. He'll probably win anyway, because the "liberal" vote here is presently divided between three different parties, while the conservative vote pretty well all goes to the Conservatives. Thus about 40% of the Canadian electorate ends up winning an election over the other 60% of the Canadian electorate. Interesting system we have in place here, eh? ;-) |
|
13 Sep 08 - 08:48 PM (#2439598) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Ebbie My apologies, LH. It is apparent that GtS is NOT Janet. I went back and checked. On the other hand, a rose by any other name... *G* GtS, you never mention your music any more- have you given it up? |
|
13 Sep 08 - 09:04 PM (#2439612) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk No problem. So many people have been mistaken for Janet by now that she is approaching the mythical status of Osama Bin Laden... ;-) |
|
14 Sep 08 - 01:13 AM (#2439774) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Ebbie lol |
|
14 Sep 08 - 03:00 AM (#2439800) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Not only am I not Janet, I don't even know who you are talking about...it doesn't matter, I'm just words on a screen...but they are accurate, to the best of my abilities, for as much typing that I want to do..(I'm not a mega-typer)...and ...Yes, I did the benefit concert, and it was both a lot of joy, and was extremely well received...and they even sold out...and sold 50% more..and raised even more, than they originally targeted..thank you for asking. The next project is recording..of which, when it is available, I'd be happy to share with my dearest Mudcat, trigger happy, loved ones, on here! Little Hawk is also correct in his assertions about my posts, and if this goes beyond the partisan, nonsense, we could really go deeper...matter of fact...'Lipstick on a pig'...is a perfect description of the whole corrupt charade, that we are witnessing , every day we live, here in the 'division of America' era. I would like to implore you, who are writers, artists and musicians, to reach deep within yourselves, to the heart, and write, speak, and sing against the fall of a once proud nation! The politicians will follow if we lead. Forty years ago, we stopped a war(though history will show if that was wise or not), ..who knows..but now, is the time to make a difference to heal, and reach across, to your brothers and sisters, as brothers and sisters, and become one, as a people. God Bless! |
|
14 Sep 08 - 11:09 AM (#2439986) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq Well, somebody had to do it... lipstick on a pug |
|
14 Sep 08 - 11:29 AM (#2439992) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stringsinger I think that Obama should own the "lipstick on a pig" statement. It refers to McCain's misguided policies. Whatever you do, don't think of a Queen of Pork. |
|
14 Sep 08 - 02:47 PM (#2440160) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: mg If I was writing on racially sensitive matters, I probably wouldn't say anything about blackest part of a heart. Like Obama's statement, I think it was entirely innocent but it is the sort of thing we have been encouraged not to say. mg |
|
14 Sep 08 - 04:22 PM (#2440235) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton Politicians don't say things "innocently" I've watched a few re-runs of the speech and I'm quite certain the remark was "planted". The audiance reacted to the word "lipstick" and Obama looked oh so slightly startled, as if he didn't know what they were laughing at ...feined innocence??. However, just for a second, a slight smirk passed across his face, just enough to let them see that he knows what they know! Writing in todays Sunday Times, radical feminist Camille Paglia says of Mrs Palin...."It is premature to predict how the Palin Saga will go. I may not agree a lot with her about basic principles, but I have immensely enjoyed Palin's boffo performances at her debut. A feminist that cannotadmire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state, Isn't worth a bucket of warm spit"..............I'll second that opinion......Ake Camille Paglia's articlHEREe |
|
14 Sep 08 - 04:34 PM (#2440247) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: pdq "A feminist that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state, Isn't worth a bucket of warm spit." ~ Camille Paglia Well, she does "play well" out here in Nevada. Actually, she would sweep the entire country west of the Mississippi River (New Mexico excluded) if it were not for a few large urban areas: Seattle, Portland, Denver, and several in coastal California. |
|
14 Sep 08 - 05:29 PM (#2440296) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel Dubious right wing polls show that Plain oops,,, Palin has increased her lead among WHITE women by 15% |
|
14 Sep 08 - 05:44 PM (#2440325) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger Michelle |
|
14 Sep 08 - 05:49 PM (#2440336) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Little Hawk ...ma belle... |
|
14 Sep 08 - 05:50 PM (#2440339) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Emma B |
|
14 Sep 08 - 05:51 PM (#2440341) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Emma B ooops! seems that was 'sans' les mots! |
|
14 Sep 08 - 06:25 PM (#2440365) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos Seems to me that by making Baracks phrase such an all-fired loud issue, McCain's camp is ignoring the pig and focusing on the lipstick. But it's still a pig. A |
|
14 Sep 08 - 09:25 PM (#2440490) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Ake said, "Politicians don't say things "innocently." Sure they do. Maybe not when they're totally scripted (as in the convention speeches). But when even parts of their talk to an interviewer or in a town hall or stump speech are spontaneous -- as is usually the case -- they may choose their words not just innocently but often clumsily as well. Everyone makes gaffes, including politicians. That said, I don't think this was a gaffe. I don't think the Democrats should have to abandon this perfect, very familiar metaphor just because the Republican VP nominee had used the word "lipstick" in her convention speech. |
|
14 Sep 08 - 09:31 PM (#2440491) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Stringslinger, I've said before -- not sure if it was here at Mudcat or in an email to friends and family -- that Obama should embrace his "lipstick on a pig comment." He should take out an ad (and/or use this comment in interviews and speeches) to say: "I did not call the Governor Of Alaska a pig. What I called "a pig with lipstick" was John McCain's economic, education, environmental, health care, and foreign policy. But come to think of it it, Gov. Palin truly is the Queen Of Pork." |
|
14 Sep 08 - 09:35 PM (#2440494) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Oh, and as for admiration for the bravura" of Sarah Palin, hey, I don't begrudge her that. It's just that what I want in a President -- and, by extension, anyone who is a heartbeat away from becoming one -- is a helluva lot more than just guts, political craftiness, and chutzpah. Genie |
|
15 Sep 08 - 04:26 AM (#2440666) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Sighhhh.... ...but Camille Paglia's statement is a step in the right direction, in the way of breaking down preconceived notions, on what anyone can achieve, despite their 'biased against' political stereotypes. Let's look at the achievements and accomplishments of others, and realize we can set our own goals. (Interpretation: The pen is mightier than the sword!) |
|
15 Sep 08 - 03:46 PM (#2441296) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Donuel I put lipstick on our dog But since she is black the only place it would show up was right beneath her tail. Its a real eye grabber all right What is the democrate version of lipstick on a pit bull? Libstick on anything |
|
16 Sep 08 - 09:26 AM (#2441961) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Sorry, for got to 'name up' From: Donuel Date: 15 Sep 08 - 03:46 PM I put lipstick on our dog But since she is black the only place it would show up was right beneath her tail. Its a real eye grabber all right What is the democrate version of lipstick on a pit bull? Libstick on anything .......ANSWER: Hillary Clinton, but the 'libstick' on the black pit bull's ass, is far more attractive!!!!!!!...and makes more sense!!!! |
|
16 Sep 08 - 10:50 AM (#2442045) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yeah!! Amos............wishful thinking. |
|
16 Sep 08 - 11:40 AM (#2442091) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from sanity I just arrived back to this time period, from the future, stepped off the spaceship, with news from the future,.....the history books are defining 'Lipstick on a Pig', as Monica Lewinski..and all the other piglets that Billy Boy Clinton, had affairs with.....caused me to wonder, as I gazed off in the horizon,...Is that one reason Sarah has five children, and Hillary only one???? |
|
16 Sep 08 - 11:49 AM (#2442098) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: dick greenhaus Camille Paglia's statement is an odd one: she's says that because Pailin is gutsy and spunky and a woman, we shouldn't worry about her beliefs because she hasn't acted on them...as yet. |
|
16 Sep 08 - 12:00 PM (#2442121) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Yeah Dick, either Paglia is coming to her senses, or just running her mouth to gain credibility...very confusing for her to say anything nice about some one not sharing her mental health problems! |
|
16 Sep 08 - 02:19 PM (#2442280) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos From an interview with Obama in Univision: "Everything that's said in the campaign makes headlines and yesterday you said, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Republicans are suggesting that it was an insult to Sarah Palin. What did you mean by that comment and in hindsight, do you regret saying that?" -Absolutely not, this is nonsense.... "-You don't regret saying that...?" -Of course not. I was talking about John McCain's economic policies, and I said, "He can call it change, but it's not change, and if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig." That is an old expression. -"But, why use that metaphor when it's one of Sarah Palin's most famous phrases up to now." -What do you mean? "-The difference between a pitbull..." -No, no, but listen... "...and a hockey mom is lipstick..." -I don't watch Sarah Palin's speeches. This is a metaphor... "-You don't watch her speeches?" -I'm not worried about what she is saying. This is an expression I've used; this is an expression John McCain has used. So the notion that somehow now that she uses an expression, that somehow you cannot use that expression as well, I think is just a fabrication. This is an example of them not wanting to talk about those issues. What does that have to do with the lives of your viewers? What does that have to do with what they are going through right now? We have the highest foreclosure rate since the Great Depression. There are families in communities all across America that are losing their homes. We were talking yesterday about education and making sure that we reduce the drop out rate, and this is what the McCain campaign wants to talk about? And unfortunately the media, this often times is what the media is interested in talking about, instead of talking about the things that are going to make a difference in people's lives. So, I have absolutely no regrets about it; and we are going to change how politics works in this country so we actually start dealing with the serious problems that we face. " |
|
16 Sep 08 - 04:17 PM (#2442403) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Amos, I read Obama's interview...But i was interrupted constantly by th by this flock of pigs flying over. You actually believe him when he said he didn't listen to her speech?????....NOR HIS SPEECH WRITER?? ...OR 'ADVISERS'.........LOOK OUT, ANOTHER FLYING PIG JUST ABOUT BANGED MY HEAD WITH HIS HOOF!!!!...wow..that was close... |
|
16 Sep 08 - 04:34 PM (#2442422) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Richard Bridge Er - fugitive from sanity, do you know where and why lipstick was (mostly) first worn? And beforeyou accuse me of not reading your drivel, you'd better go back and read what you said. |
|
16 Sep 08 - 04:36 PM (#2442423) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos GfS: Your bilious sarcasm continues to be unbecoming and to disguise your actual sensitivity, humor, and talent. I did not say I believed one or another part of the part of the interview I posted. I suspect he said he did not read the speech by Palin as part of his effort to not be positioned against her. In any case it was the least important part of what he said. What was important about it was it straightened out right quick the lewd distortions being offered by the McCain camp followers who are overly hungry for justification and outrage, no matter at what cost. A |
|
16 Sep 08 - 05:20 PM (#2442474) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stilly River Sage Geoff Nunberg on Fresh Air. Fresh Air from WHYY, September 16, 2008 · When Barack Obama trotted out a well-worn, folksy phrase about cosmetics and swine on Sept. 9, the political world developed a sudden allergic rash. The John McCain campaign depicted the remark as deliberate personal attack on vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin. Former Massachusetts governor Jane Swift, who was heading up a Palin "Truth Squad," accused Obama of calling McCain's running mate a pig — and described the remark as offensive and disgraceful. Fresh Air's resident linguist examines the furor, asking who's responsible when words get misconstrued — and whether there's an irony when a cultural conservative complains that a progressive has been insufficiently sensitive. |
|
16 Sep 08 - 05:56 PM (#2442497) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos All I can say is, if the lipstick fits, wear it. A |
|
16 Sep 08 - 05:56 PM (#2442498) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton What chance is there to change anything, when people are so partisan that they refuse to believe the evidense of their own eyes and ears! It is truly mesmerism. Obama is not a saviour, he is a token black man set up by the $yStem as a foil to the discredited right. He plays the game like any other politician, speaking of a change that the $yStem will never allow....and make no mistake, the change that is needed is well beyond Mr Obama or Mr McCain. The Capitalist financial system is imploding and you talk of Obama as if he can make the slightest difference. You could well come to see that the change you wish for, will have to be won on the streets, not in the politician's den.......Ake |
|
16 Sep 08 - 08:18 PM (#2442625) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Guest from Sanity, After you used that lipstick on your dog "where it would show up," I hope you designated that particular tube as the dog's exclusive property! (At the very least, if it was some woman's lipstick and not your own, I hope you told her where it'd been.) LOL Genie |
|
16 Sep 08 - 08:19 PM (#2442626) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Oh, wait. It was you who "decorated" your dog, Donuel! Well, the same caveat still holds. Genie (Kids, please do not try this at home with your mom's lipstick.) |
|
16 Sep 08 - 08:23 PM (#2442628) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos Ake: I know of no-one here who thinks of Barack Obama as a "saviour", but he sure iss not "token", and it reveals a deeply prejudiced mindset, IMO, to use such an expression in light of who he actually is and what he is accomplishing. A |
|
16 Sep 08 - 08:25 PM (#2442629) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Guest from sanity - PM [[ ... Monica Lewinski - and all the other piglets that Billy Boy Clinton, had affairs with - caused me to wonder, as I gazed off in the horizon, Is that one reason Sarah has five children, and Hillary only one????]] No, the Clinton's do not subscribe to "abstinence only" as a birth control program. Especially after marriage. |
|
16 Sep 08 - 10:05 PM (#2442681) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger It's always bothered me when people pick on Monica Lewinski. She was in her twenties and was serving as an intern. He was in his fifties, and was the president of the United States. |
|
17 Sep 08 - 12:40 AM (#2442747) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Forgot to post name again, gosh durn it.... From: Genie Date: 16 Sep 08 - 08:18 PM Guest from Sanity, After you used that lipstick on your dog "where it would show up," I hope you designated that particular tube as the dog's exclusive property Oh Genie, Thou shall not covet....get your own! No, the Clinton's do not subscribe to "abstinence only" as a birth control program. Especially after marriage. Why should they??...Just let it slop on the Blue dress! Aside from that, and on a more serious note: If a person cannot keep a vow, to the partner he brought forth a child with...who is he going to keep an oath with??????? Just what does that scumbag value?? Life??..His wife??? His family??...Naw, just you, who voted him in, right???? Watch out, there's another pig flying overhead!! From: Amos Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:56 PM All I can say is, if the lipstick fits, wear it. OR.....If the cigar fits....smoke it???...just don't inhale!!! |
|
17 Sep 08 - 02:25 AM (#2442783) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie Ringslinger: "It's always bothered me when people pick on Monica Lewinski. She was in her twenties and was serving as an intern. He was in his fifties, and was the president of the United States." Hey, I was in my twenties once. We 20-something wimmen ain't as innocent as some o' you guys seem to wanta believe. STUPID, maybe. But not innocent. Genie ; D |
|
17 Sep 08 - 02:56 AM (#2442796) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton Surely you haven't stooped to accusing me of racism Amos? You know me well enough, why throw that remark into the discussion? I will put it down to "mesmerism" and give you the benefit of the doubt. You should of course be very careful before sticking nasty labels on people, given the views of a large number of white Southern Democrats. What is happening in the US/UK economies now, transcends gutter politics and the attemps of both parties to "mesmerise" using race or gender. Now close your eyes and when I snap my fingers you will waken and feel refreshed, you will see your system of government for what it is. You will go out into the world and fight for FREEDOM!!......Ake |
|
17 Sep 08 - 01:09 PM (#2443191) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity From: Genie Date: 17 Sep 08 - 02:25 AM Hey, I was in my twenties once. We 20-something wimmen ain't as innocent as some o' you guys seem to wanta believe. STUPID, maybe. But not innocent. Totally agree!! Mr. Billy Boy should have known better, as well! He was and still is a jerk! |
|
17 Sep 08 - 01:11 PM (#2443196) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Ake,..HERE HERE, AND BRAVO!!!!!! |
|
17 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM (#2443225) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos Ake: My apologies if I misinterpreted your expression about Obama that "he is a token black man set up by the $yStem as a foil to the discredited right." However he is not a token, he is a candidate; and he is much less a black man than he is a human being. He is also a father, husband, Constitutional scholar, community organizer and a Senator in the United States Congress. As for being a "foil", you imply he is somebody's knowing or unknowing puppet. What facts do you have in support of this idea, if that is what you think? A |
|
17 Sep 08 - 03:31 PM (#2443355) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stringsinger McCain and Palin are the King and Queen of flim-flam. They are selling phony values and the result is a heavy-handed deceitful campaign. They have distorted American values to the level of the curtain which houses the Wizard of Oz. Their Rovian idea is to put one over on the American public. They lie with impunity and the editorial pundits lap it up like cream in a cat's dish. How can you respect something like that? Republicans have no answer for the future of America. A McCain presidency will mean an economic depression. A Palin Vice Presidency will be an attempt to turn America from a nation of tolerance and caring to a theocracy. "Abstinence Only" will result in more teen-age pregnancy. A lack of true diplomacy and a shoot-from-the-hip loose cannon military approach will bring America down in the eyes of the world. It's a Republican facade that can only destroy true democratic values. Frank Hamilton |
|
17 Sep 08 - 05:24 PM (#2443463) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Hey Strings,, Thought provoking post! If they don't hit you with a left, they'll hit you with a right. There will more than likely be a major downturn in the economy, and increased government control, no matter who is elected....the excuse will be custom fit, for which ever party gets elected. If Obama is elected, they'll use 'his' programs to complete the agenda. Same with McCain, except they'll go the other way. (Towards the end of their terms, is when they push what final 'touches' they need to, without a sense of repercussions), figuring the continuation, is picked up by the next administration...either right or left 'remedy'. |
|
17 Sep 08 - 09:55 PM (#2443630) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger "Hey, I was in my twenties once. We 20-something wimmen ain't as innocent as some o' you guys seem to wanta believe. STUPID, maybe. But not innocent." Okay, but being stupid shouldn't buy you a lifetime of misery. Georeg W. Bush is doing quite well, and look how stupid he is. |
|
17 Sep 08 - 10:34 PM (#2443649) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Amos A group of computer hackers said yesterday that they had accessed a Yahoo e-mail account of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, publishing some of her private communications to expose what appeared to be her use of a personal account for government business. The hackers posted what they said were personal photos, the contents of several messages, the subject lines of dozens of e-mails and Palin's e-mail contact list on a site called Wikileaks.org. That site said it received the electronic files from a group identifying itself only as "Anonymous." (WaPo) |
|
18 Sep 08 - 03:48 AM (#2443790) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: akenaton "Snap" "Snap" "Snap"........For fuck's sake wake up Amos!!! Would somebody send for the medics?? |
|
18 Sep 08 - 05:50 AM (#2443829) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Nigel Parsons refresh |
|
18 Sep 08 - 07:18 AM (#2443881) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger You'd think she'd know better than to put embarrassing things in an e-mail, with MoveOn.org out there tryint desparately to destroy the country. |
|
18 Sep 08 - 07:38 AM (#2443898) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Bobert You hit it just right, Stringz... The media is indeed fascinated by Sir John and Ms. Sarah... Sir John's entire campaign is centered around using the media... He has no other choice since he has less money than Obama so he'll buy one ad accusing Obama of this or that, the media will pick up on that ad and allow it's contents to grow into a day's worth of news cycle... The problem here is that Obama really doesn't have any way to combat the McCain Smlime Machine without stooping to McCain's tactics and then McCain win's the ***BIG LIE*** PR campaign that "both campaigns" are playing dirty pool... I called the Washington Post on this a couple weeks ago and they actually acknowledged recieving my letter... That was a good thing but it hasn't stopped the McCain strategy... As for waht Amos was talking about, Ake... I understand what he is/was saying in that the McCain camp would love nothing more than reduce this campaign to race... They have done alot allready to do just that... They have run ads intended to play on people;s fears and they have tried to make people who support Obama think they are supporting him solely because he is black... I will give credit to them because they have kept things close in an election where they have absolutely nothing else to run on other than slime, race and fear... B~ |
|
18 Sep 08 - 04:37 PM (#2444369) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity FINALLY!! Some people are starting to get the clue!! |
|
19 Sep 08 - 01:47 PM (#2445234) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Stringsinger Bobert, that's what all this community organizer stuff is about. White people scared to death that Black people will take over. It's "Birth of a Nation" all over again. Obama is beginning to be more pointed in his rebuttals. This is a good sign. Not enough but a good direction. |
|
19 Sep 08 - 09:52 PM (#2445586) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Riginslinger "Obama is beginning to be more pointed in his rebuttals. This is a good sign." Maybe his handlers will tell him to be less pointed next week. |
|
20 Sep 08 - 02:41 AM (#2445714) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Is a Rebuttal like a retread for worn butts? |
|
20 Sep 08 - 02:54 AM (#2445721) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: Genie No, a rebuttal is round 2 between two bighorns. |
|
20 Sep 08 - 03:14 AM (#2445729) Subject: RE: BS: Lipstick on a Pig From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Thanks Genie..I was confused there..... |
