BuffettNews.com

And to be "fair and balanced" someone should tell Sen Biden that the powers of the VP are described in Article 2 of the Constitution not in Article 1.

SMLCHNG wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:

ph4ever wrote:I'm probably the only one that's having problems with her trying to make herself out to be a middle American. She's not a middle American woman. A middle American woman does not wear and spend the money on clothes she does.

Thank you, nor can Middle Class women buy a $500 pair glasses

I've seen her glasses listed between $300 and $700...

Mine (frames and lenses) are about $800, without insurance. With, I pay about $300.

mine are about that expensive, my contacts are a lot less, but you have to have eyeglasses as back up.

as far as what she spends on clothes, women in education, as in Principal, Superintendent, Vice-Principal spend a tremendous amount on clothing, shoes, etc.

It's required that they look extremely professional, at all times.

At least she's not as frumpy looking as Hillary always was, IMO...

not that what clothes you wear have anything to do with it, at all.

however, I do believe that Palin has a very distinctive style, of her own making, which is first class, I just do not agree with her stand on allowing, encouraging hunters to kill wolves and bears from low flying airplanes...and put a hefty bounty on the wolves.

I think she certainly held her own and surprized a lot of people, if they will admit it. I know I was surprized, as well as pleased that she did well.

Lightning Bolt wrote:

Martonian wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

msu#1 wrote:

Wino you know wrote: Maybe if she dressed like a BAG LADY, they'd all be inclined to vote for her.

Bill Clinton and John Edwards were both blasted for getting expensive haircuts in the past.

Yes, they were, and they SHOULDN'T have been.
As a sitting President and U.S. Senator, I'd rather they spend a few bucks making themselves presentable than looking like Joe-sh*t-the-rag-man.

what a liberal take

I'm watching Hannity & Colmes right now... spin is an incredible thing
these dumba$$es have such a woody for any woman that could spout rhetoric and shoot long-arms ... Dick Morris is a hack

I saw that just now. Morris is the worst. I can't believe he's such a prominent analyst on that network. He's been wrong so many times when he's made predictions on that network.

FauxNews had their reputation for "fairly imbalanced" long before the others....

I bounced around the channels after the debate. Fox was spewing for the Rep's, CNN was spewing for the Dem's so much that their analyst was saying us and them, CBS could'nt switch back to dancing ratings fast enough, NBC was spewing Dem's and PBS was the ONLY channel offering a true balanced opinions. Of course if you see RED Palin won, if you see BLUE Biden won. A whole lot of energy wasted in my opinion. Just wish when there is a debate and candidates rip off voting facts. they get them right. The very least of which the Article of the Constitution that is about the office in which you are running for! Alas, nobody will hold them to it. Joe ( can I call him Joe?) confused voting records an awefull lot and Sarah just didn't seem to up to snuff on her facts enough to be wrong.
In a nut shell.... We're screwed no matter who wins!

TheSecretsInTheCrust wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

Martonian wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

Wino you know wrote:

msu#1 wrote: Bill Clinton and John Edwards were both blasted for getting expensive haircuts in the past.

Yes, they were, and they SHOULDN'T have been.
As a sitting President and U.S. Senator, I'd rather they spend a few bucks making themselves presentable than looking like Joe-sh*t-the-rag-man.

what a liberal take

I'm watching Hannity & Colmes right now... spin is an incredible thing
these dumba$$es have such a woody for any woman that could spout rhetoric and shoot long-arms ... Dick Morris is a hack

I saw that just now. Morris is the worst. I can't believe he's such a prominent analyst on that network. He's been wrong so many times when he's made predictions on that network.

FauxNews had their reputation for "fairly imbalanced" long before the others....

I bounced around the channels after the debate. Fox was spewing for the Rep's, CNN was spewing for the Dem's so much that their analyst was saying us and them, CBS could'nt switch back to dancing ratings fast enough, NBC was spewing Dem's and PBS was the ONLY channel offering a true balanced opinions. Of course if you see RED Palin won, if you see BLUE Biden won. A whole lot of energy wasted in my opinion. Just wish when there is a debate and candidates rip off voting facts. they get them right. The very least of which the Article that is about the office in which you are running for! Alas, nobody will hold them to it. Joe ( can I call him Joe?) confused voting records an awefull lot and Sarah just didn't seem to up to snuff on her facts enough to be wrong.
In a nut shell.... We're screwed no matter who wins!

yup i am pretty much with you on that....SCREWED!!!!!!!!!

Moonie wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:

ph4ever wrote:I'm probably the only one that's having problems with her trying to make herself out to be a middle American. She's not a middle American woman. A middle American woman does not wear and spend the money on clothes she does.

Thank you, nor can Middle Class women buy a $500 pair glasses

I've seen her glasses listed between $300 and $700...

Mine (frames and lenses) are about $800, without insurance. With, I pay about $300.

mine are about that expensive, my contacts are a lot less, but you have to have eyeglasses as back up.

as far as what she spends on clothes, women in education, as in Principal, Superintendent, Vice-Principal spend a tremendous amount on clothing, shoes, etc.

It's required that they look extremely professional, at all times.

At least she's not as frumpy looking as Hillary always was, IMO...

not that what clothes you wear have anything to do with it, at all.

however, I do believe that Palin has a very distinctive style, of her own making, which is first class, I just do not agree with her stand on allowing, encouraging hunters to kill wolves and bears from low flying airplanes...and put a hefty bounty on the wolves.

I think she certainly held her own and surprized a lot of people, if they will admit it. I know I was surprized, as well as pleased that she did well.

To buy women's clothes (that hold up well) is expensive these days. I went to Ann Taylor Loft (the cheaper of Ann Taylor stores) and spend $120 on two shirts and one pair of pants. And that was a good deal....The clothes won't hold up as well as the more expensive of the Ann Taylor stores but they do me for a year....I have bought clothes from Target, Walmart, and department store brands....and they just don't wear well or hold up like I need them to.

Eye glasses are expensive as well...I spent close to $500 on my back up pair as well. I guess what I'm saying is that to be a well dressed business woman these days, you have to be prepared to spend some money

Wino you know wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:with McCain conceding Michigan today... I'll still call it a good day

I sure HOPE Michigan doesn't "go blue" this year.
Because it's an awful long way to go to kick some a$$.

We've been a Blue State in the last four elections. We send Democrats to Washington and Republicans to Lansing, for whatever reason. Now if only we could get all politicians to pull their ads, I wouldn't need to have the mute button handy every time I turn on the TV.

I didn't watch it, as I've said before yelling at the TV while sitting alone is no fun and I don't need the aggravation and Joe Biden isn't my favorite person in the world, I was disappointed in that choice but I'm willing to live with it. I did find this this morning though for those who did. And apparently she didn't make things worse, doesn't matter to me - I was never going to vote for McCain anyway. I will miss the jokes though, and as for Tina Fey I concur with what she said herself, hopefully she won't ever have to play her again past Nov 4.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-po ... act.Check/

ScarletB wrote:I didn't watch it, as I've said before yelling at the TV while sitting alone is no fun...

I bailed when the Cub game started....and ended up yelling at the TV.

chippewa wrote:

ScarletB wrote:I didn't watch it, as I've said before yelling at the TV while sitting alone is no fun...

I bailed when the Cub game started....and ended up yelling at the TV.

Yeah, when I happen to watch football I'm always glad I only have one neighbor

Moonie wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:

ph4ever wrote:I'm probably the only one that's having problems with her trying to make herself out to be a middle American. She's not a middle American woman. A middle American woman does not wear and spend the money on clothes she does.

Thank you, nor can Middle Class women buy a $500 pair glasses

I've seen her glasses listed between $300 and $700...

Mine (frames and lenses) are about $800, without insurance. With, I pay about $300.

mine are about that expensive, my contacts are a lot less, but you have to have eyeglasses as back up.

as far as what she spends on clothes, women in education, as in Principal, Superintendent, Vice-Principal spend a tremendous amount on clothing, shoes, etc.

It's required that they look extremely professional, at all times.

At least she's not as frumpy looking as Hillary always was, IMO...

not that what clothes you wear have anything to do with it, at all.

however, I do believe that Palin has a very distinctive style, of her own making, which is first class, I just do not agree with her stand on allowing, encouraging hunters to kill wolves and bears from low flying airplanes...and put a hefty bounty on the wolves.

I think she certainly held her own and surprized a lot of people, if they will admit it. I know I was surprized, as well as pleased that she did well.

As I think I said earlier, I thought she did fairly well, but that didn't surprise me as she has a history of strong debate performance. But I think once you look beyond the superficial nature of what she said (or how she didn't answer the questions asked), there wasn't a lot there but really canned answers.

But yes, her performance was stronger than most expected.

I think the restricted format that the Republicans wanted was a big help to Palin.

If the format had been more open (more chance for direct exchange and Q&A between the candidates themselves) Biden would have emerged from the debate looking even stronger than he did.

Also, suggestions that Moderator Gwen Ifill would influence the debate in favor of the Democrats were obviously overblown and absurd. After asking her questions, Ifill let the candidates answer or not with little followup. In fact, the format offered Palin the opportunity to say the things she wanted to say ("Joe Sixpack" "Hockey Moms" etc) instead of answering questions with specifics.

Just as there are those who still staunchly support George after all the mess he's made, there are those who will staunchly support Sarah Palin, regardless of her performance in interviews and debates and previous public office. I think one commentator correctly assessed her performance in the debate and pointed out the questionable Republican strategy for the debate. She appealed to her 'base' last night (Evangelical Christians) and may have been somewhat successful in shoring up support among committed Republicans, but she didn't make any appeal to the truly undecided voters out there who will decide this election. Clearly the Republicans were after nothing more than this, an implicit acknowledgment that Sarah Palin won't be the half of the ticket to get the undecided voters.

She 'survived' her encounter with Biden (thanks to the format) and now I don't think we'll hear much more from Palin in the remaining weeks before the election.

She said, "doggone it".

tikitatas wrote:She said, "doggone it".

I heard she wanted to say "Git R Duun" but opted for "doggone it" at the least minute.

Class act, I'm tellin' ya.

flyboy55 wrote:I think the restricted format that the Republicans wanted was a big help to Palin.

If the format had been more open (more chance for direct exchange and Q&A between the candidates themselves) Biden would have emerged from the debate looking even stronger than he did.

Also, suggestions that Moderator Gwen Ifill would influence the debate in favor of the Democrats were obviously overblown and absurd. After asking her questions, Ifill let the candidates answer or not with little followup. In fact, the format offered Palin the opportunity to say the things she wanted to say ("Joe Sixpack" "Hockey Moms" etc) instead of answering questions with specifics.

Just as there are those who still staunchly support George after all the mess he's made, there are those who will staunchly support Sarah Palin, regardless of her performance in interviews and debates and previous public office. I think one commentator correctly assessed her performance in the debate and pointed out the questionable Republican strategy for the debate. She appealed to her 'base' last night (Evangelical Christians) and may have been somewhat successful in shoring up support among committed Republicans, but she didn't make any appeal to the truly undecided voters out there who will decide this election. Clearly the Republicans were after nothing more than this, an implicit acknowledgment that Sarah Palin won't be the half of the ticket to get the undecided voters.

She 'survived' her encounter with Biden (thanks to the format) and now I don't think we'll hear much more from Palin in the remaining weeks before the election.

As the resident right-wing nut-job (well, at least one of them ) I was really disappointed in Palin's performance. In fact, I was shocked to check the news this morning and see a lot of talk about how she "held her own."

What happened to the Sarah Palin that could speak in concise, declarative, direct, sentences? She had some good lines, but too often stepped on them by continuing to let her sentence run-on.

I DO NOT like Joe Biden (views or personally) but have to admit he kept his windbag tendencies nicely in check. He fudged a lot of facts, used a lot of misleading descriptions and even made up some numbers, but at least he did it with authority.

I kept waiting for Palin to say "Joe... you can say something is a fact as many times as you want... but that still won't make it so!" And at the end of the night I was still waiting...

Let's face it... McCain needed a home run from Palin last night. I thought she may have drawn a base on balls, commentators seem to think she got a solid single. But, it won't be enough - this election is OVER.

I suppose there IS a silver lining, though... at least a President Obama prevents the agony of another Hillary run at the White House.

Quick question: How (why) is it relevant how much Sarah Palin spends to dress without, discussing what the other candidates spend, too?

ALL these people have high level political jobs and I would expect them to dress in professional business attire.
Not only that, I would expect them to wear high quality clothes. They're representing our Government.
Anyone who wants to represent the USA should look like they're representing the greatest nation in the world, and not a nation on the decline. IMHO.

sunseeker wrote:

Moonie wrote:

SMLCHNG wrote:

UAHparrothead wrote:

ph4ever wrote:I'm probably the only one that's having problems with her trying to make herself out to be a middle American. She's not a middle American woman. A middle American woman does not wear and spend the money on clothes she does.

Thank you, nor can Middle Class women buy a $500 pair glasses

I've seen her glasses listed between $300 and $700...

Mine (frames and lenses) are about $800, without insurance. With, I pay about $300.

mine are about that expensive, my contacts are a lot less, but you have to have eyeglasses as back up.

as far as what she spends on clothes, women in education, as in Principal, Superintendent, Vice-Principal spend a tremendous amount on clothing, shoes, etc.

It's required that they look extremely professional, at all times.

At least she's not as frumpy looking as Hillary always was, IMO...

not that what clothes you wear have anything to do with it, at all.

however, I do believe that Palin has a very distinctive style, of her own making, which is first class, I just do not agree with her stand on allowing, encouraging hunters to kill wolves and bears from low flying airplanes...and put a hefty bounty on the wolves.

I think she certainly held her own and surprized a lot of people, if they will admit it. I know I was surprized, as well as pleased that she did well.

To buy women's clothes (that hold up well) is expensive these days. I went to Ann Taylor Loft (the cheaper of Ann Taylor stores) and spend $120 on two shirts and one pair of pants. And that was a good deal....The clothes won't hold up as well as the more expensive of the Ann Taylor stores but they do me for a year....I have bought clothes from Target, Walmart, and department store brands....and they just don't wear well or hold up like I need them to.

Eye glasses are expensive as well...I spent close to $500 on my back up pair as well. I guess what I'm saying is that to be a well dressed business woman these days, you have to be prepared to spend some money

You can get instyle nice clothes at target for dirt cheap if you do it right, I just got 4 pairs of $50 jeans at 8 dollars apiece on clearance, 5 tshirts for $3 apiece, and 3 pairs of shorts at $4 apiece all at 75% off.

I roll thru target at least once a week looking at what just went on clearance at if anything had hit 75 % off yet.

well, when you set the bar an inch off the floor and the event is the highjump and not the limbo, how hard is it to exceed expectations?

How on EARTH anyone with vision insurance is paying $500+ for eyeglasses is beyond me, and I have one of the most whacked-out prescriptions most eye doctors ever see.

Most retail prices I see for eyeglasses are in the $100-$250 range for frames, the $250 being for something like a Marc Jacobs frame at an eyeglasses store. My frames I think were about $150 retail and they are a lovely tortoise shell pair of Pradas (the only Prada I can afford...).

My vision plan is pretty typical and will cover the exam, up to $120 on frames and 100% of the prescription after I satisfy a $25 deductable. If I want add-ons like coating and tinting, those are $15 each. I usually get the anti-glare thingy. I end up spending about $75-$100 out of pocket for new glasses, including the exam, depending on the frame cost differential.

Palins' frames are the Kawasaki 704 glasses. They retail from anywhere between $350 and $500 for the frames from what I've seen. As the poster child for a middle American professional working mother, I would never spend that much on a pair of frames. If she's not paying much out of pocket for them, then I want her insurance coverage.

I usually pay about $35 for work pants, and $20-$30 for shirts or sweaters I wear to work. Shoes for work are about $50-$60 a pop. We're talking basic department stores here...Macys, Dillards, etc. I hardly pay full price for anything, mostly because I feel guilty if I buy something for myself and it isn't completely a fabulous deal.

I have one really nice Ralph Lauren button-up shirt with pinstripes and cuffs that I think I paid $85 (which my husband had to MAKE me buy because I think it is ridiculous to pay that much for clothing). I guard that shirt with my life. I have one really nice navy-blue business suit (not a pantsuit, I'm a skirt girl) I paid about $140 for, on sale about six years ago.

100% of my dress clothes come from Value City. Mostly last year's styles of name brand stuff.

Pants - never more than $15
Shirts - $9.99-$12.99
Ties - $7.99-$9.99