Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

I understand that you, Mr Pixel, and Chum the Clown will forgive Palin for anything short of cannibalism, so I'm really barking up the wrong tree with this. But, of course, the $150,000 Palin spent in 2 months on her wardrobe is 180 degrees from her campaign rhetoric, about being just a regular working class family, her and Todd, doncha know, who feels the economic crunch just like "you" do. Obama hasn't actually uttered any lies that have been disproven by his wife's lunch, unlike Palin. So your party line distraction is duly noted, but completely irrelevant.



LOL. Again, great appologetics. No substance, but Republicans are held to such a low standard that, well, it's completely acceptable.

I see, so buying new clothes for work so that you look like all the rich people campaigning is "bad", but pissing away $400 on lunch is ok.. Not apologizing here, just laughing at your amazing ability to have a double standard and not see it..

Not sure how buying nice clothes, which apparently she didn't buy but someone else paid for as a part of the campaign, can be considered a lie when you have another guy steadfastly refusing to prove his citizenship..

Now, repeat after me.. Politicians lie.. All of them lie.. Even the chosen one..

Originally Posted by cbwm

The guy has the gift of telling people whatever he wants and having them believe it despite all evidence to the contrary.

You are just jealous

Originally Posted by juliensimon

You are just jealous

I certainly respect the gift. The guy could make a fortune at whatever he does. Its just a sad day when we, as a society, are so cynical about our leaders that we expect them to lie to us and some even praise their skill at lying. Perhaps what I'm saying is that I could vote for a politician who skillfully lies and doesnt get caught in his lie(Bush?). My issue with Barack is that he gets caught outright over and over and over again, and just tells us "You didnt catch me" and assumes our stupidity as to just buy it on face value.

if he gets elected,which he probably will, it means it worked and that there are more "stupids" than you think...

Originally Posted by juliensimon

if he gets elected,which he probably will, it means it worked and that there are more "stupids" than you think...

I agree, and obviously, so does he. Sometimes it feels like elections are nothing more than a giant Asche Conformity experiment. At the end of the day, one saying is certainly true. A people deserves it's leader. I wonder how many Palestinians feel good about electing Hamas to power now that they've pretty much folded up the elected government and further isolated and impoverished the state so they could feed their hatred of Israel. Never underestimate the power and blindness of an angry mob.

Halloween Decoration Ideas

Have you been watching her more recent video footage? Regardless of how this election turns out, her political future is pretty much secured, so long as some idiots don't try to burn her at the cross for McCain's failure to get elected. She's more comfortable, shes clearer spoken, less run on sentences, less talking points, and good on the delivery. I get the feeling her earlier delivery shortfalls were a combination of nerves (being suddenly thrust into a very harsh liberal national press spotlight), and being tied heavily to a very short script. I'll stand by my earlier statements when I said she is the best of the four people running for office here.

BTW... In the halloween spirit, I've hung an Obama from stake in my front yard, with flames surrounding it.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Have you been watching her more recent video footage? Regardless of how this election turns out, her political future is pretty much secured, so long as some idiots don't try to burn her at the cross for McCain's failure to get elected. She's more comfortable, shes clearer spoken, less run on sentences, less talking points, and good on the delivery. I get the feeling her earlier delivery shortfalls were a combination of nerves (being suddenly thrust into a very harsh liberal national press spotlight), and being tied heavily to a very short script. I'll stand by my earlier statements when I said she is the best of the four people running for office here.

Nah - I still think she is crazy and a complete idiot. Of course, everything is "emphasized" in the wrong way by the media to attract more audience but banning books, dinosaurs living 4000 years ago, her incomprehensible nonsense speech and so on and so on....
I would still be scared if she gets the presidential seat if something happens to Mc Cain.

BTW... In the halloween spirit, I've hung an Obama from stake in my front yard, with flames surrounding it. [/quote]

Are you burning the witch or making the devil appear?

I suppose you could buy into that nonsense the liberals want you to both believe and focus on. The fact remains that as a governor, she has an 80% approval, the highest rating in the country. Her track record speaks for itself, in a similar way but opposite of Obama's. But lets talk about book burning... yeh... right.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I suppose you could buy into that nonsense the liberals want you to both believe and focus on. The fact remains that as a governor, she has an 80% approval, the highest rating in the country. Her track record speaks for itself, in a similar way but opposite of Obama's. But lets talk about book burning... yeh... right.

80% of 700 000 people...

I have done enough stats to know they can be tweaked easily and they are only relevant when based on the same scale.
I would much rather hear her talk...at least I get a good laugh...or tear.

Thats 700,000 more people than Mr. Obama has ever been directly responsible for. Getting 80% of 100 people to be happy with the way you govern them is difficult. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise.

Regarding listening to her speak, there is no question her speech mannerisms are more unusual to many Americans than those of our fine countrymen from North Dakota, though a bit similar. I didnt hold Mr. Clintons less pronounced "southernisms" against him, as most Democrats didn't. I try not to bash Canadians for using the word "Eh" too much and mispronouncing a variety of words including "about". Again, none of this cr*p has anything to do with her qualifications and her record speaks for itself. Your angst was more explainable when you tried to categorize her as a Christian extremist.

Here is something you'll like. Given her age, experience, Hilary's negatives, and the possibility of Obama being a two term president, shes got a better shot at being the first female president than Hilary Clinton.

Did I mention she plays the flute?

Originally Posted by Feydakin

I see, so buying $150,000 of new clothes for work so that you look like all the rich people campaigning is "bad", but pissing away $400 on lunch is ok..

That one detail you left out puts everything in perspective and makes the rest of your quote laughable. Which is why you left that one fact out. Very Republican of you, honesty and all.

Yes, spending 3x the average American family income on a new wardrobe is very different (especially in terms of pretending to be part of the middle class) from a far less obscenely priced (but still over the top) lunch. The difference is night and day. It's like the difference between a Lexus and a 120 foot yacht. Anyone who can't see that is blind.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Yes, spending 3x the average American family income on a new wardrobe is very different (especially in terms of pretending to be part of the middle class) from a far less obscenely priced (but still over the top) lunch. The difference is night and day. It's like the difference between a Lexus and a 120 foot yacht. Anyone who can't see that is blind.

Blind. That describes you well. Do you have any idea how much either of the Obama's wardrobe costs? How about the per seat per flight cost on Air Obama? I don't see you complaining about those over the top expenses funded by the Obama Campaign and the DNC. Take the campaign money out of it and you have Sarah at the bottom end of the wealth scale, JohnMcCain(Via Cindy) at the top, followed closely by Senator "Pocket those Earmarks" Obama. Its amazing the Liberal rags even print this cr*p because its paper thin and relies on blindness or lack of intelligence not to see through it at first glance.

On a personal note.. I'm getting mentally prepared for the Socialist president Obama. With a super majority in both houses of Congress, the damage he could do to this country is scary. I try and soothe my nerves by focusing on a few heartwarming facts

1) Its only 4 years, maybe less if he gets impeached.
2) A McCain loss makes way for a President Gingrich in 2012.
3) A sound beating will help bring Republican congressmen back to their roots of fiscal responsibility, a path they seem to have lost.
4) A super liberal Democrat in office will remind the country why we don't elect very many Democrats to the office of president.
5) So long as this idiot (Obama) doesnt put us into a depression (possible), I'm in a position to benefit from his socialistic policies.

There.. I feel better already.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

That one detail you left out puts everything in perspective and makes the rest of your quote laughable. Which is why you left that one fact out. Very Republican of you, honesty and all.

Yes, spending 3x the average American family income on a new wardrobe is very different (especially in terms of pretending to be part of the middle class) from a far less obscenely priced (but still over the top) lunch. The difference is night and day. It's like the difference between a Lexus and a 120 foot yacht. Anyone who can't see that is blind.

Of course you are leaving out the fact that she HAD to buy those clothes to look like everyone else running for office.. She didn't already have several hundred grand in clothing in her closet.. You don't seem to mind MO spending $400+ on lunch for herself when my lunch tends to be about $6.. Or the fact that the other 3 candidates already have several hundred grand in clothing..

You're just upset that someone helped her get clothes comparable to what the other candidates are wearing..

"how do you feel about the bush doctrine?"
"uhhh... in what respect charlie?"
"Well ... what do you think the bush doctrine is?"
"His world views"

I'm a 16 year old CANADIAN boy - and I know what that is (or at least have a rough idea).



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fb-in0vEN5E

Ahh, Charlie Gibson. Did you catch Neil Cavuto interviewing an Obama rep today talking about how much you need to earn annually to take a tax increase from Obama? At first the Obama rep stood on the 250k per year figure, and that those over that number would only see the tax rate they had under Clinton. So Neil asks him about raising the Social Security withholding limit. The guy says, well I think we would consider that. He then asks the guy whether he plans to let the Bush tax cuts sunset, or immediately repeal them. The guy then says he had heard Obama say he would let them expire naturally (Contrary to the words out of Obama's mouth).

Sooooo.. with all the mixed messages, Neil did something Katie Curac did to Sarah Palin. "I don't mean to belabour the point but could you please clarify.... wont raising the Social Security cap raise taxes for many Americans earning under 250k per year, this not being something Clinton had in place?". The guy answers again, "We would consider it". After asking the fifth time of asking the guy to clarify, he finally said, "look, I think maybe Senator Obama should provide that information".

Interesting. First off, Neil is one of the first reporters I've seen repeat a question after the greased weasel wouldnt give a straight answer. Second, when pressured, the guy pretty much out and out refused to answer. Third, the fact that they "Would consider it" means the guy flat out lied in the first part of his interview when he said the limit was 250k and even those folks would only see the taxes they saw under Clinton. It's 100% pure BS. It tells you when they said they would put in place these other taxes, those ideas are very much still on the table. All this not to balance the budget, but instead to give money away to lower income Americans.

I guess what I'm saying is that it probably is better to come out of an interview looking a bit ignorant on Bush Policy than it is to come out looking like a slimey lying communist. Its why Obama won't do any interviews on Fox, or anyone else that actually might demand the truth from him. It's why his campaign is so pissed off about the interview Biden got in Florida, where Biden was forced to out and out lie for being pressed on a question.

Did you happen to catch the SNL bit where Ben Aslick did the Keith Olbermann countdown? I swear to god I p*ssed myself I laughed so hard. Miss Perfect Princess stole the show.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Of course you are leaving out the fact that she HAD to buy those clothes to look like everyone else running for office..

Bull poop. And very lousy bull poop. Palin didn't "havta" spend $75,000.00 a month on clothes any more than Bill Clinton "had to" cheat or Ted Haggard "had to" snort meth from a hooker's male anatomy or Rush Limbaugh had to addict himself to oxycontin. Palin seems to like fancy clothes, and got other people to pay for a hell of a lot of them.

Which, of course, is changing the subject. You said it's less middle class like to spend $150,000.00 on clothing than it is to spend $411 on lunch.

This type of deceipt (selectivity) is the favorite tactic of a progagandist. An extremist to the party. You're no centrist.

Republican lying aside - or, perhaps, to center stage - it would be good of "Uncle Ted" Stevens to step down from the senate (looks like Alaska is happy to elect a felon) to make room for the rising star of American Idol politics.

Um, I take it back. Talk about a post election bomb shell. If any of the gossip about her knowledge gets verified(imaginable maybe even likely), I doubt she'll ever compete on a national scale again.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video0....foxnews.com/#

Harriet Meirs Sarah Palin voted for convicted felon Ted Stevens. Of course this is a woman who got the state to pay her $17,000 to live in her own home. I'm convinced that (solidly, endlessly Republican) Alaska is the most corrupt state in the nation - but not quite as bad as Uzbekistan or Myanmar.