Lipstick on a Pig

**spiff** · 12-09-2008, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by attaboy

Originally Posted by spiff

Should have a look at Palin claiming per diem travel expenses while staying at home with her children instead of working at town hall. Typical Repug bible-basher hyporicy - stealing from tax-payers and being against supporting people who really need it because that would be "socialism".

Don't be surprised if lefties propose per diem benefits if ordinary workers do their work at home rather than commute to their office; 'global warming', 'peak oil' and all that. It's forward thinking.

What's good for the goose....

Shouldn't be surprised when 'conservative' governors set the example.

**Ivor Biggun** · 12-09-2008, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by lysander

lipsticks, pigs and banjo players don't play too great a part in the next US election.

The world may be a safer place if they did ?

**panama hat** · 14-09-2008, 04:06 PM

If everyone esle can see that the comment wasn't aimed at Palin, why do the Republican spin-meisters think they can make the US voting public believe it? Here's a nice excerpt from the SMH, not being anti-US at all, just pointing out some facts.

Our pigs wear lipstick too

September 14, 2008

Australian punters are not fooled by the spin and shenanigans of state and federal politicians, writes Paul Daley.

NOW it's official. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig.
Of course, when he said this, Barack Obama wasn't talking about Sarah Palin, who's really just a pit bull terrier with lipstick pretending to be a hockey mum - or something like that.
What Obama and John McCain (who used the pig-in-lipstick line before him) were really saying was that in politics there are no real surprises. What you see - or what you think you see - is not what you'll get. It's all illusory. Politicians will promise you all sorts of things but in the end it's ultimately disappointing. So keep your expectations low.
Of course, the United States' most captivating public figures - people like John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bill Clinton - liked to take the people on a journey of their emotions and their souls when they told their stories. Now they just tell you to bury your expectations - not to dream - because in the end … it's just a pig in lipstick.
It's a sad, sad commentary on public debate in the US.

**Mr Earl** · 14-09-2008, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Barry's gone from being a "croissant" (something rich and exotic) to being a "Croissan'Wich"(something you get at a Burger King drive-through window)

mildly amusing....but as soon as i read it, i knew it was far too clever for you earl.....and i was right.

Not ready for prime time: when you act too cool to be president … | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

Ray you sack of Croissan'Wiches.

**spiff** · 14-09-2008, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

If the Libtards can't find actual quotes Hey! Make 'em up

Nor do your notorious tardblogs show the actual quote. Did you bother to read what you linked to?

The quote was incomplete and out of context, not something the smear blogs have any grounds to feel righteous about. LOL

**panama hat** · 14-09-2008, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by spiff

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

If the Libtards can't find actual quotes Hey! Make 'em up

Nor do your notorious tardblogs show the actual quote. Did you bother to read what you linked to?

The quote was incomplete and out of context, not something the smear blogs have any grounds to feel righteous about. LOL

What I find astounding is that the right-wing rabid neo-cons think they can just come up with crap without having to justify or clarify . . . but woe anyone who question them . . . wankers.

**Boon Mee** · 14-09-2008, 09:29 PM

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”

She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”
Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”
ad_icon

Wrong…

…Presidential doctrines are inherently malleable and difficult to define. The only fixed “doctrines” in American history are the Monroe and the Truman doctrines which come out of single presidential statements during administrations where there were few other contradictory or conflicting foreign policy crosscurrents.

Such is not the case with the Bush doctrine.
Yes, Sarah Palin didn’t know what it is. But neither does Charlie Gibson. And at least she didn’t pretend to know — while he looked down his nose and over his glasses with weary disdain, sighing and “sounding like an impatient teacher,” as the Times noted. In doing so, he captured perfectly the establishment snobbery and intellectual condescension that has characterized the chattering classes’ reaction to the mother of five who presumes to play on their stage.

Charlie's been schooled:

Thread: Lipstick on a Pig

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions