Pigs In Lipstick?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

The clip I saw didnt have any correction of GS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30&NR=12:40 - 3:00We done here?

[copernicus 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpoAVAA1F30&NR=12:40 - 3:00We done here?

From the original thread:

rofl....he could have escaped it better by saying he was talking about McCain not claiming he is Muslim. Instead he just corrects it to Christian.

yup

[LongLiveYorke 38]

BHO: "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith and you're absolutely right that..."GS: "Christian Faith"BHO: "My Christian Faith...Well, what I'm saying is that hasn't suggested that I'm Muslim"GS: "Right"BHO: "What I think is fair to say is coming out of the republican camp there are effort to suggest that I am not who I say I am when it comes to my faith, and that is something that I find deeply offensive."Are we watching the same video?

[copernicus 0]

BHO: "John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith and you're absolutely right that..."GS: "Christian Faith"BHO: "My Christian Faith...Well, what I'm saying is that hasn't suggested that I'm Muslim"GS: "Right"BHO: "What I think is fair to say is coming out of the republican camp there are effort to suggest that I am not who I say I am when it comes to my faith, and that is something that I find deeply offensive."Are we watching the same video?

you arent following. the quote of myself was from the morning the story broke, and without seeing a video that continued that far. the genius did what I said he should do.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

you arent following. the quote of myself was from the morning the story broke, and without seeing a video that continued that far. the genius did what I said he should do.

Ah. We're done here.

[jmkiser 0]

Let's get to the real point:How incredibly stupid it was to use that joke.

He got it from Cheney and some other Republican, if I recall.He just used their exact words.I'm not sure the average person would know that, though. Could have been a bad idea

[Loismustdie 0]

He got it from Cheney and some other Republican, if I recall.He just used their exact words.I'm not sure the average person would know that, though. Could have been a bad idea

McCain used it awhile back when commenting on Hilarys new healthcare plan. I agree it probably was a bad idea to use that saying in this case.

[copernicus 0]

Its a very old expression, dating back to the 60s at least. However, I just watched the speech when he said it. The supporters sitting behind him laughed hysterically at it...far more than it would have elicited if they hadnt related it to Palin. So don't say its only the GOP that thinks he was referring to her.

[Nimue1995 1]

What really bugs me about this whole thing is that this is an election that could well change the course the United States and possibly the world for quite a while to come and we're talking about freakin' pigs and lipstick.

[JustDoIt 10]

Do you have any hard evidence of this? Parachuting into Alaska? Com'on, that's just silly. Besides, haven't the Republican's lawyers etc been hard at work this many months digging up the dirt on Obama and now Biden? Their records are out there in the open whereas Palin's exist mostly in Alaska. I'm just glad that the Democrats this time aren't pulling a Kerry not fighting back. Thank goodness they have enough balls this time to go toe to toe with the Republican attach machine.

Naw, we are not wasting our time digging up dirt.....we made sure Biden has a microphone and we turned Gov. Palin loose on Obama.

[RonBurgundy 0]

they dont have to claim it, their actions have proven they are

No it doesnt suggest that. Rebuttal/retaliation in kind is mandatory for survival, and is far from "taking the low road". Instigation/initiation is not the MO of the McCain campaign.

you seem to agree with most hard line repub policy issues and it seems like you've been following this election pretty closely, so why do you need to lie to yourself that McCain is somehow running things above board? before, i thought you might actually have some intelligent discourse to bring to this political debate unlike the propaganda-spitting fanatics on both fringes. unfortunately, its becoming more and more clear that your research is narrow-minded and deceitful.as for examples of mccain attacking, not defending as you previously stated, here you go.sex ed ad (fact check)blaming internet rumors on Obama (fact check)quicker little things (including lipstick on pig idiocy and some obama lies too)and as for "thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere", here is a timeline from talkingpointsmemo on the actual legal process through which it was rejected:

Actually, Congress put the kibosh on the Bridge to Nowhere back in November 2005. Since Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was then head of the Senate Appropriations Committee he was able to force a compromise in which the earmark for the bridge was killed but Alaska got to hold on to the money -- some $442 million of federal tax dollars.Fast forward to November 2006. That's when Sarah Palin was running as a staunch supporter of the Bridge to Nowhere -- that is, after the feds had themselves already said 'No Thanks.'In 2006, the Democrats took over both houses of Congress. So by the time Palin got into office it was clear that not only was the first Bridge earmark killed but that Congress was not going to be ponying up any more money. That meant that Alaska was going to have to pick up the tab all on its own. So since she couldn't pay for it with the federal pork barrel, in September 2007, Palin officially halted the project which was then a state project since Congress had said 'Thanks. But no thanks' two years earlier.She couldn't say 'No Thanks' because Congress had already said 'Forget It'.Still with me?So the money Palin sent back to Washington? Well, she didn't. She kept the money for other bridges and roads in Alaska.So, to boil it all down, Congress pulled the plug on the Bridge to Nowhere in 2005. Palin was still for it in 2006. And when she finally ended the project because Congress had cut off funding, instead of saying 'No Thanks' she actually said 'Thanks!' because instead of sending the money back to Washington she kept it all in Juneau.

if you're going to repeat, word for word, from convention speech to election day, at best an exaggeration and at worst a flat out lie, is that not deceitful campaigning?how are any of these cited examples "honorable", "high road", or "non-instigative"? p.s. i never said i was against earmarks so please dont come back at me with the "BUT OBAMA AND BIDEN DID IT TOOO" defense. we're not debating about obama and biden. i am questioning your claims that mccain and his "straight talk express" have not succombed to Rovian tactics, exaggerations and flat-out lies in order to win this election at all costs.

[copernicus 0]

you seem to agree with most hard line repub policy issues and it seems like you've been following this election pretty closely, so why do you need to lie to yourself that McCain is somehow running things above board? before, i thought you might actually have some intelligent discourse to bring to this political debate unlike the propaganda-spitting fanatics on both fringes. unfortunately, its becoming more and more clear that your research is narrow-minded and deceitful.as for examples of mccain attacking, not defending as you previously stated, here you go.sex ed ad (fact check)blaming internet rumors on Obama (fact check)quicker little things (including lipstick on pig idiocy and some obama lies too)and as for "thanks, but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere", here is a timeline from talkingpointsmemo on the actual legal process through which it was rejected:if you're going to repeat, word for word, from convention speech to election day, at best an exaggeration and at worst a flat out lie, is that not deceitful campaigning?how are any of these cited examples "honorable", "high road", or "non-instigative"? p.s. i never said i was against earmarks so please dont come back at me with the "BUT OBAMA AND BIDEN DID IT TOOO" defense. we're not debating about obama and biden. i am questioning your claims that mccain and his "straight talk express" have not succombed to Rovian tactics, exaggerations and flat-out lies in order to win this election at all costs.

sex ed ad that is not an "attack". Obama supported the bill. the curriculum from that bill is far from age appropriate, and sex ed for 5 years olds is asinine.internet rumors who funds moveon, dailykos and huffington post, the biggest purveyors of those rumors? lipstick regardless of intent it was stupid, and his supporters onsite clearly thought it was directed at Palin

[RonBurgundy 0]

Its a very old expression, dating back to the 60s at least. However, I just watched the speech when he said it. The supporters sitting behind him laughed hysterically at it...far more than it would have elicited if they hadnt related it to Palin. So don't say its only the GOP that thinks he was referring to her.

are you a psychologist and body language expert now too?just please stop. stop the bullshit. stop talking about things that make absolutely no difference in how these candidates will lead the country if elected. if you are backing a candidate, tell us why. not because he's a war hero, not because we need a black man in office, not because she's a hockey mom, and not because he rides the train home every damn day from DC.we have two months people. two months to figure out what this country might look like in four years. if you want to be stupid and petty, go ****ing watching TMZ and please stay as far as possible away from the voting booths. this is the presidential election of the United States, not an overblown political narrative popularity contest. also, if you're gonna strictly read daily kos, tpm, and huffpost, do yourself a favor and go check out redstate and powerline. if you only watch fox news, flip on msnbc. the seemingly absurd radically opposite point of view will hopefully shed some light that your fringe is just as far out as theirs.there's truth on both sides, but there's also a whole lot of bullshit. and instead of immersing ourselves in news media strictly designed to exaggerate claims and decieve us, try to see the other point of view, get a little perspective, and wade through the nonsense in order to find some real objective truths, whatever that may lead to.

[RonBurgundy 0]

sex ed ad that is not an "attack". Obama supported the bill. the curriculum from that bill is far from age appropriate, and sex ed for 5 years olds is asinine.

as far as i understand it, the younger aged "sex ed" classes would be specifically geared towards warning about sexual predators. what an "asinine" concept, huh? definitely not change you can believe in.

[Nimue1995 1]

sex ed ad that is not an "attack". Obama supported the bill. the curriculum from that bill is far from age appropriate, and sex ed for 5 years olds is asinine.Do you have a copy of the ACTUAL curriculum or are you just believing what the right wing websites say is in there. Because my understanding is that it teaches 5 year olds how to protect themselves against sexual predators. And I say it's needed along with more watchful parenting here because I talked to a little girl that just came up to our house with no caution about me being a stranger or anything. She'd have come right in the house if I'd let her. internet rumors who funds moveon, dailykos and huffington post, the biggest purveyors of those rumors? Where do you have any substantive proof that the Obama campaign has supported these organizations in any way? lipstick regardless of intent it was stupid, and his supporters onsite clearly thought it was directed at PalinSo because the people there were ignorant, you promote McCain being ignorant also? And now we're stuck listening to this discussion on a NON ISSUE?

[RonBurgundy 0]

internet rumors who funds moveon, dailykos and huffington post, the biggest purveyors of those rumors?

hmm, muslims? gays? barack? i dont know. which enemy is it who funds these sites. please enlighten me.

lipstick regardless of intent it was stupid, and his supporters onsite clearly thought it was directed at Palin

so when a McCain supporter asked him "how do we beat the bitch?" during primaries and he laughed a while before explaining he was ahead of hillary in a Rasmussen poll, he clearly implied hillary was said bitch? do you see how convoluted this gets when you start reaching for things like audience reaction?besides, palin called herself a pitbull with lipstick on. is a pig really that much worse?the sad thing is that the entire message of barack's statement--that by putting a fresh face on a campaign lacking any substantial differences from policies of the last 8 years and saying "change" and "reform" a lot, McCain was putting lipstick (Palin) on a pig (Republican Party)--was completely lost in the media frenzy.when it comes down to it, both parties are guilty of letting this kind of silliness get in the way of a serious campaign. the media is certainly guilty as well, but aren't they really just doing what they think will get more viewers/readers? if so, the fault lies with us too, for allowing our presidential election to stoop to the level of some paris vs. nicole catfight.seeing this campaign on both sides has made me extremely worried about the future of american politics and the intelligence of the american people, regardless of who wins.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

they dont have to claim it, their actions have proven they are

Oh COOOOOOOOOOOOOOME ON?? Don't be a completely blind fool! Seriously, you must be completely brainwashed to believe that the GOP is taking the high road in any way, shape, or form. That's just too much, even for you dude. Even the lipstick on a pig thing, you think the GOP is taking the high road here? They are disgusting. Both Dick Cheney and John McCain have BOTH used this phrase in the past and Obama was referencing McCain's economic plan. That is clear as day, yet the GOP is trying to make it a big deal and play the gender card. The GOP is pure scum dude, absolute scum when it comes to the way they play the political game. Karl Rove is a greasy dirt bag...

[Nimue1995 1]

It's called "Don't look at those 'same old policies' behind the curtain. Look at the shiny new entertainment we've got for you over here. And by the way,that other wizard is so horrible, he keeps pulling that curtain open.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Oh COOOOOOOOOOOOOOME ON?? Don't be a completely blind fool! Seriously, you must be completely brainwashed to believe that the GOP is taking the high road in any way, shape, or form. That's just too much, even for you dude. Even the lipstick on a pig thing, you think the GOP is taking the high road here? They are disgusting. Both Dick Cheney and John McCain have BOTH used this phrase in the past and Obama was referencing McCain's economic plan. That is clear as day, yet the GOP is trying to make it a big deal and play the gender card. The GOP is pure scum dude, absolute scum when it comes to the way they play the political game. Karl Rove is a greasy dirt bag...

Oh COOOOOOOOOOOOOOME ON?? Don't be a completely blind fool! Both parties play in the gutter. Dems and Pubs are both guilty in this election. Open your right eye too man and see both sides or you just look like a myopic fool.Karl Rove isn't even in this fight and nobody fights dirtier than the Clintons.

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Oh COOOOOOOOOOOOOOME ON?? Don't be a completely blind fool! Both parties play in the gutter. Dems and Pubs are both guilty in this election. Open your right eye too man and see both sides or you just look like a myopic fool.Karl Rove isn't even in this fight and nobody fights dirtier than the Clintons.

I NEVER said the Dem's didn't play dirty and I sincerely HOPE they get even more dirty! They have to in order to win and get rid of the GOP from office. Negative ads simply work. Dem's have been notorious for not fighting back against the bully (GOP) often enough. The GOP doesn't want this election to be about issues at all because they'll lose. Instead they want it to be about personal attacks and lipstick to avoid the reality of the country's situation. Economy, the war, the environment, etc. I hope Obama and co. open up a can of whup ass on McCain and Palin. I actually like McCain as a person, but I dislike Palin immensely. Since McCain is essentially laying low right now, I hope they get a monster team of lawyers out to Alaska to get to the bottom of all of her BS that she is spouting.

[vbnautilus 48]

Both parties play in the gutter.

Well then copernicus is wrong that the republicans are taking the high road. And therefore Daniel is right.

[copernicus 0]

as far as i understand it, the younger aged "sex ed" classes would be specifically geared towards warning about sexual predators. what an "asinine" concept, huh? definitely not change you can believe in.

wrong. look at the curriculum. They talk about masturbation, gay sex, biological names for the genitals...before they can read. thats asinine.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

I NEVER said the Dem's didn't play dirty and I sincerely HOPE they get even more dirty! They have to in order to win and get rid of the GOP from office. Negative ads simply work. Dem's have been notorious for not fighting back against the bully (GOP) often enough. The GOP doesn't want this election to be about issues at all because they'll lose. Instead they want it to be about personal attacks and lipstick to avoid the reality of the country's situation. Economy, the war, the environment, etc. I hope Obama and co. open up a can of whup ass on McCain and Palin. I actually like McCain as a person, but I dislike Palin immensely. Since McCain is essentially laying low right now, I hope they get a monster team of lawyers out to Alaska to get to the bottom of all of her BS that she is spouting.

But you only criticize republicans, I have never seen you write anything bad about democrats and calling us scum is painting with a pretty broad brush.Re-read what you wrote, "but I dislike Palin immensely." You yourself have said that we haven't had enough exposure to her to see what she is really like and you write that! Who is the party of hate?As far as issues the only thing Obama says is we don't want more of Bush. He can't say how he really feels about the issues because he would loose big time. Just look at how many times he has changed his stance on Bush tax cuts. First he would immediately repeal them, then he said he wouldn't renew them, now he says he won't eliminate them if the economy is doing poorly. WTF, does he believe they are bad or not?

[copernicus 0]

Well then copernicus is wrong that the republicans are taking the high road. And therefore Daniel is right.

daniel and right dont belong together in the same sentence.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Well then copernicus is wrong that the republicans are taking the high road. And therefore Daniel is right.

On that point yes. Right now the high road is pretty low.