BuffettNews.com

Interestingly enough, here's an entire article in the Washington Post stating that the way she dresses is nothing special.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00859.html

rumdrinks wrote:

What I find interesting is that I use language similar to what she does (but then I'm Texan).
I don't see it as talking down to people or "dumbing down" as you call it, but rather a refreshing relief from the elitism that I've heard from people (like John Kerry) who have no conceptualization of what an average Jane's lifestyle like mine is like.

]



I'll go along with you on the point that she may use similar language to what I use also, She talks like people I talk to everyday.....but I'm also not remotely qualified to be VP. I know lots of soccer moms that talk just like her...and none of them are qualified to be VP either....that's great that she talks like you or me.....but I don't think we would be qualified to go toe to toe with Putin...do you?

Exactly! I do want a Pres and VP who speak in language I can understand, but I want them to be statesmen as well. Her use of casual language in a debate setting, along with the winking just doesn't strike me as appropriate for someone seeking the Vice Presidency.

As for her clothes or the price of her glasses-pretty irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

I think the Republican strategy for the remainder of the campaign is coming into focus for me.

The choice of Palin for V.P. never made sense until I understood the evangelical christian connection. These folks were going to stay home rather than vote for John McCain. Palin's presence on the ticket gets the evangelicals out to vote.

Her evangelical religious affiliation by itself was likely enough to get her the V.P. slot. I don't think it matters to the Republican National Committee that she is unsuitable in almost every other respect. She isn't intended to be a Cheney-type vice president - I don't think they plan to let her run anything if the ticket wins.

But there are other advantages to having Sarah Palin on the ticket. She is an obvious and easy target (Saturday Night Live hasn't had it this good in years) for her opponents, but the negative reaction to her candidacy (from liberals and some prominent conservatives) will likely garner her some sympathy (and votes) from others of her ilk. I think the Republican establishment were aware of this possibility, too.

The relatively new development going into the home stretch is Palin's function as McCain's attack dog. This last weekend in a speech in California, Palin wondered out loud about Obama "palling around with terrorists", a reference to his membership on a Chicago nonprofit's board of directors with Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the 60's radical group the Weather Underground. Pretty inflammatory remarks and a sign of desperation in the Republican campaign I think.

Palin's schtick - "I'm just a little ole hockey mom from up there in Alaska" and its function of making her sound "just like you" also serves to confer victim status on her in the event that Obama and Biden are tempted to take the gloves off and fight back in the same manner. I have to give the Republican strategists credit for this one.

Clearly, Palin will be the one to handle the 'smear' campaign in the final weeks, with the Republicans hoping to avoid any association of such tactics with McCain personally. Obama and Biden will fall into the Republican's 'Sarah Trap' if they try to respond in kind.

I guess the McCain/Palin campaign weren't getting any traction on the 'issues' so they figured it was time to pull a 'Rove'.


Nice.

flyboy55 wrote:I think the Republican strategy for the remainder of the campaign is coming into focus for me.

The choice of Palin for V.P. never made sense until I understood the evangelical christian connection. These folks were going to stay home rather than vote for John McCain. Palin's presence on the ticket gets the evangelicals out to vote.

Her evangelical religious affiliation by itself was likely enough to get her the V.P. slot. I don't think it matters to the Republican National Committee that she is unsuitable in almost every other respect. She isn't intended to be a Cheney-type vice president - I don't think they plan to let her run anything if the ticket wins.

But there are other advantages to having Sarah Palin on the ticket. She is an obvious and easy target (Saturday Night Live hasn't had it this good in years) for her opponents, but the negative reaction to her candidacy (from liberals and some prominent conservatives) will likely garner her some sympathy (and votes) from others of her ilk. I think the Republican establishment were aware of this possibility, too.

The relatively new development going into the home stretch is Palin's function as McCain's attack dog. This last weekend in a speech in California, Palin wondered out loud about Obama "palling around with terrorists", a reference to his membership on a Chicago nonprofit's board of directors with Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the 60's radical group the Weather Underground. Pretty inflammatory remarks and a sign of desperation in the Republican campaign I think.

Palin's schtick - "I'm just a little ole hockey mom from up there in Alaska" and its function of making her sound "just like you" also serves to confer victim status on her in the event that Obama and Biden are tempted to take the gloves off and fight back in the same manner. I have to give the Republican strategists credit for this one.

Clearly, Palin will be the one to handle the 'smear' campaign in the final weeks, with the Republicans hoping to avoid any association of such tactics with McCain personally. Obama and Biden will fall into the Republican's 'Sarah Trap' if they try to respond in kind.
I guess the McCain/Palin campaign weren't getting any traction on the 'issues' so they figured it was time to pull a 'Rove'.


Nice.

this, is where you would turn loose Ann Richards in an earlier time, and let her take Palin off the count by cutting her six ways from Christmas with a sweet smile and a razor intellect.

flyboy55 wrote:I think the Republican strategy for the remainder of the campaign is coming into focus for me.

The choice of Palin for V.P. never made sense until I understood the evangelical christian connection. These folks were going to stay home rather than vote for John McCain. Palin's presence on the ticket gets the evangelicals out to vote.

Her evangelical religious affiliation by itself was likely enough to get her the V.P. slot. I don't think it matters to the Republican National Committee that she is unsuitable in almost every other respect. She isn't intended to be a Cheney-type vice president - I don't think they plan to let her run anything if the ticket wins.

But there are other advantages to having Sarah Palin on the ticket. She is an obvious and easy target (Saturday Night Live hasn't had it this good in years) for her opponents, but the negative reaction to her candidacy (from liberals and some prominent conservatives) will likely garner her some sympathy (and votes) from others of her ilk. I think the Republican establishment were aware of this possibility, too.

The relatively new development going into the home stretch is Palin's function as McCain's attack dog. This last weekend in a speech in California, Palin wondered out loud about Obama "palling around with terrorists", a reference to his membership on a Chicago nonprofit's board of directors with Bill Ayers, one of the founders of the 60's radical group the Weather Underground. Pretty inflammatory remarks and a sign of desperation in the Republican campaign I think.

Palin's schtick - "I'm just a little ole hockey mom from up there in Alaska" and its function of making her sound "just like you" also serves to confer victim status on her in the event that Obama and Biden are tempted to take the gloves off and fight back in the same manner. I have to give the Republican strategists credit for this one.

Clearly, Palin will be the one to handle the 'smear' campaign in the final weeks, with the Republicans hoping to avoid any association of such tactics with McCain personally. Obama and Biden will fall into the Republican's 'Sarah Trap' if they try to respond in kind.

I guess the McCain/Palin campaign weren't getting any traction on the 'issues' so they figured it was time to pull a 'Rove'.


Nice.

good grief

the other side has soooo much to offer too

ejr wrote:

rumdrinks wrote:

What I find interesting is that I use language similar to what she does (but then I'm Texan).
I don't see it as talking down to people or "dumbing down" as you call it, but rather a refreshing relief from the elitism that I've heard from people (like John Kerry) who have no conceptualization of what an average Jane's lifestyle like mine is like.

]



I'll go along with you on the point that she may use similar language to what I use also, She talks like people I talk to everyday.....but I'm also not remotely qualified to be VP. I know lots of soccer moms that talk just like her...and none of them are qualified to be VP either....that's great that she talks like you or me.....but I don't think we would be qualified to go toe to toe with Putin...do you?

Exactly! I do want a Pres and VP who speak in language I can understand, but I want them to be statesmen as well. Her use of casual language in a debate setting, along with the winking just doesn't strike me as appropriate for someone seeking the Vice Presidency.

As for her clothes or the price of her glasses-pretty irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Precisely. I'm not a huge Reagan fan, but I did like him very much as a person. PBS has been running a special on 'ol Ronnie that paints him as quite endearing. Part of the reason he seems so down to earth was because he spoke well to people, but didn't talk down to them.

Palin sounds like she just got out of cheerleading practice.

buffettbride wrote:

ejr wrote:

rumdrinks wrote:

What I find interesting is that I use language similar to what she does (but then I'm Texan).
I don't see it as talking down to people or "dumbing down" as you call it, but rather a refreshing relief from the elitism that I've heard from people (like John Kerry) who have no conceptualization of what an average Jane's lifestyle like mine is like.

]



I'll go along with you on the point that she may use similar language to what I use also, She talks like people I talk to everyday.....but I'm also not remotely qualified to be VP. I know lots of soccer moms that talk just like her...and none of them are qualified to be VP either....that's great that she talks like you or me.....but I don't think we would be qualified to go toe to toe with Putin...do you?

Exactly! I do want a Pres and VP who speak in language I can understand, but I want them to be statesmen as well. Her use of casual language in a debate setting, along with the winking just doesn't strike me as appropriate for someone seeking the Vice Presidency.

As for her clothes or the price of her glasses-pretty irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Precisely. I'm not a huge Reagan fan, but I did like him very much as a person. PBS has been running a special on 'ol Ronnie that paints him as quite endearing. Part of the reason he seems so down to earth was because he spoke well to people, but didn't talk down to them.

Palin sounds like she just got out of cheerleading practice.

Palin would best serve the people by pointing to a WEATHER MAP on the local TV news

why is having wealth become a "evil" thing in this country?

Soooo, what is a Joe Six Pack and average Jane or Joe?
Frankly, I can't identify with the Pres or VP candidates.
I must be Joe Individual.

12vmanRick wrote:why is having wealth become a "evil" thing in this country?

Ask these guys - Enron's Ken, Jeffrey and Andy. (oops - one of them has already faked his own death).

I've been thinking up NRA-type slogans to rally the nation around the wealthy:

"If wealth is outlawed, only the outlaws will have wealth".

This one works for the three individuals above.

"You can take my wealth when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

Appropriate in the case of Ken Lay (if he's really dead).

And before anyone thinks perhaps this is being insensitive to the families of these men, consider the human wreckage (suicides) left behind when Enron workers and retirees (Joe and Jane Sixpack) lost everything they had.

ps I wonder if Bush still has Ken's number on speed dial in the Oval Office?

flyboy...you forgot my favorite rich man to hate...



Contractually, Qwest still has to pay his defense costs.

buffettbride wrote:flyboy...you forgot my favorite rich man to hate...



Contractually, Qwest still has to pay his defense costs.

And TWO of mine:

***

***DISCLAIMER
Although Senator Kennedy is one of my LEAST favorite people, I DO wish him a speedy recovery and return to good health.
On the other hand, I hope O.J. gets put in a cell with a 6'10", 280 pound biker from Lubbock named Clovis.

flyboy55 wrote:

12vmanRick wrote:why is having wealth become a "evil" thing in this country?

Ask these guys - Enron's Ken, Jeffrey and Andy. (oops - one of them has already faked his own death).

I've been thinking up NRA-type slogans to rally the nation around the wealthy:

"If wealth is outlawed, only the outlaws will have wealth".

This one works for the three individuals above.

"You can take my wealth when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

Appropriate in the case of Ken Lay (if he's really dead).

And before anyone thinks perhaps this is being insensitive to the families of these men, consider the human wreckage (suicides) left behind when Enron workers and retirees (Joe and Jane Sixpack) lost everything they had.

ps I wonder if Bush still has Ken's number on speed dial in the Oval Office?

that really didn't answer the question. It only showed those that abused their riches and power. Because there are many that don't that are rich and they are hated anyway.

jackiesic wrote:And depending upon your prescription (my eyesight is very bad) it can almost be impossible to get a "cheap" pair of glasses even at WalMart!

Check out this blog: http://www.getbetterglasses.com/

flyboy55 wrote:

12vmanRick wrote:why is having wealth become a "evil" thing in this country?

Ask these guys - Enron's Ken, Jeffrey and Andy. (oops - one of them has already faked his own death).

I've been thinking up NRA-type slogans to rally the nation around the wealthy:

"If wealth is outlawed, only the outlaws will have wealth".

Will you people PLEASE get over yourselves!
Not everyone who has a dollar more than you do is evil.
For that matter, not everyone who has a dollar more than you is necessarily rich either.
I think the REAL answer you people want to give but won't admit to is that SO-AND-SO has a lot of money and (in YOUR OWN opinion) you don't. Therefore it must've been aquired through ill-gotten gains.
True with some,
NOT true with many.

There will ALWAYS be rich people,
there will ALWAYS be poor people.
In America, there is ample opportunity for everyone to become either.
For me, I decided a LONG time ago poverty s.u.c.k.s., and, while in MY estimation, I'm not rich, I'm doing pretty darn good for myself because I CHOSE to. So please excuse my "evil-ness" if I decide I should be the one to benefit from the fruits of MY labor, and not some lazy freeloader who only wants to sponge off the government (and working Americans-who, by the way ARE the government).

idiots.

This one works for the three individuals above.

"You can take my wealth when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

That pretty much applies to me too, although, again, I don't consider myself super-wealthy.

Wino you know wrote: . . .

idiots.

. . .

On behalf of idiots everywhere, this reference offends me (but only if it was meant for me . . . otherwise I'm only mildly outraged).

Wino you know wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

12vmanRick wrote:why is having wealth become a "evil" thing in this country?

Ask these guys - Enron's Ken, Jeffrey and Andy. (oops - one of them has already faked his own death).

I've been thinking up NRA-type slogans to rally the nation around the wealthy:

"If wealth is outlawed, only the outlaws will have wealth".

Will you people PLEASE get over yourselves!
Not everyone who has a dollar more than you do is evil.
For that matter, not everyone who has a dollar more than you is necessarily rich either.
I think the REAL answer you people want to give but won't admit to is that SO-AND-SO has a lot of money and (in YOUR OWN opinion) you don't. Therefore it must've been aquired through ill-gotten gains.
True with some,
NOT true with many.

There will ALWAYS be rich people,
there will ALWAYS be poor people.
In America, there is ample opportunity for everyone to become either.
For me, I decided a LONG time ago poverty s.u.c.k.s., and, while in MY estimation, I'm not rich, I'm doing pretty darn good for myself because I CHOSE to. So please excuse my "evil-ness" if I decide I should be the one to benefit from the fruits of MY labor, and not some lazy freeloader who only wants to sponge off the government (and working Americans-who, by the way ARE the government).

idiots.

This one works for the three individuals above.

"You can take my wealth when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

That pretty much applies to me too, although, again, I don't consider myself super-wealthy.

you mean like the hypocritical pus-sucking weasels the American taxpayers bailed out last week? Why do I have a feeling that probably 80% of them espoused a "self-made, up-by-the-boot-straps, did it myself and they can too" philosophy... right up until the time they hit the wall with their own lousy decisions and felt entitled to their own handouts of "government cheese"?

flyboy55 wrote:

Wino you know wrote: . . .

idiots.

. . .

On behalf of idiots everywhere, this reference offends me (but only if it was meant for me . . . otherwise I'm only mildly outraged).

Consider yourself a mildly outraged NON-idiot.

RinglingRingling wrote:you mean like the hypocritical pus-sucking weasels the American taxpayers bailed out last week? Why do I have a feeling that probably 80% of them espoused a "self-made, up-by-the-boot-straps, did it myself and they can too" philosophy... right up until the time they hit the wall with their own lousy decisions and felt entitled to their own handouts of "government cheese"?

If you've read my past posts (which, apparently, you haven't), I was TOTALLY against this bail-out, AND, when all is said & done, I personnally don't give a rat's rear end if a wealthy person became wealthy through his OWN blood, sweat, & toil, or if he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth (because, after all, when the day comes when we all assume room temperature, whatever we have in our estate will be left to our heirs), and yes, I do have more respect for the self-made person as opposed to the ones who've inherited "their" wealth (ala the KENNEDYS), and yes, those goons have balls the size of a gorilla for EXPECTING the government (you and me) to bail them out when they made loans to people they had NO BUSINESS making loans to, political correctness be damned (Messers Carter & Clinton).
I live within MY means, so should the U.S. Government, so should every American.

And what little I have I EARNED myself and should STAY mine, not be redistributed by the lefties to the lazys.

Well, maybe I didn't earn EVERYTHING I have-my wife did leave me some nice jewelry when she died.
but you'll never catch me wearing it.

buffettbride wrote:

ejr wrote:

rumdrinks wrote:

What I find interesting is that I use language similar to what she does (but then I'm Texan).
I don't see it as talking down to people or "dumbing down" as you call it, but rather a refreshing relief from the elitism that I've heard from people (like John Kerry) who have no conceptualization of what an average Jane's lifestyle like mine is like.

]



I'll go along with you on the point that she may use similar language to what I use also, She talks like people I talk to everyday.....but I'm also not remotely qualified to be VP. I know lots of soccer moms that talk just like her...and none of them are qualified to be VP either....that's great that she talks like you or me.....but I don't think we would be qualified to go toe to toe with Putin...do you?

Exactly! I do want a Pres and VP who speak in language I can understand, but I want them to be statesmen as well. Her use of casual language in a debate setting, along with the winking just doesn't strike me as appropriate for someone seeking the Vice Presidency.

As for her clothes or the price of her glasses-pretty irrelevant as far as I am concerned.

Precisely. I'm not a huge Reagan fan, but I did like him very much as a person. PBS has been running a special on 'ol Ronnie that paints him as quite endearing. Part of the reason he seems so down to earth was because he spoke well to people, but didn't talk down to them.

Palin sounds like she just got out of cheerleading practice.

Those statements you made about Reagan were very correct. He talked to everyone in a language they could understand.

Sarah Palin does sound like she got out of cheerleading practice. It's pretty much her job as vice-presidential candidate is to be the cheerleader. A vice-presidental candidate has no other purpose except to talk up the presidential candidate.

Joe Biden is a pretty smart and well-informed guy who I actually like a lot. Last Thursday, he not only sold Obama pretty well. He could have sold you a used car with no money down in the parking lot after the debate.