Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTrust the California Nurses Association, the union that has pulled no punches this year, to land the best blow at the end.
Noting that a registered nurse can be outfitted in scrubs for just $10 for a hospital shift, CNA is taking aim at Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's $150,000 high-fashion spending spree.
Specifically, the nurses union is inviting Americans to play a game that illustrates what Palin's campaign clothing allowance could buy for Americans who are not so politically connected.
"The same $150,000 would outfit 15,000 RNs in scrubs," notes Geri Jenkins, RN, co-president of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee. "How disgraceful at a time when so many Americans are struggling to pay their medical bills or keep their homes."
In a nation where roughly 45 million Americans lack health care and another 45 million are under-insured, CNA (which is affiliated with the National Nurses Organizing Committee and the AFL-CIO) points out that just the $22,800 the Republican National Committee spent on makeup for the governor of Alaska could also pay for:
* 224 mammograms* 651 flu shots
* a supply of Lipitor that would last someone with high cholesterol nearly 14 years.
And while Palin continues to try and paint herself as a populist "hockey mom," CNA notes that Palin's full $150,000 could pay for:
* 15,000 chef coats* 5,769 painter's bibs
* 5,000 police shirts
* 4,687 auto mechanics' coveralls
* 3,750 pilot uniforms
* 3,571 housekeeper uniforms.
"Spending $150,000 for a one month wardrobe while painting yourself as a 'hockey mom' or the voice of 'Joe Six Pack' is an insult," says CNA executive director Rose Ann DeMoro. "There's been a lot of talk about Marxists in this campaign, but the real Marxist is in the McCain camp – she's just a Neiman Marxist."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
How much food could a $450 lobster and caviar dinner buy? That would be the meal that Michelle Obama ordered from room service on 10/14/08?
If you're going to point fingers, point them at ALL the extravegances of our candidates.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:04am
Wow, another hypocritical hit piece on Sarah Palin! What a surprise! Here's betting the kool-aid drinkers will slurp it right up!
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:04am
JOHN NICHOLS
The first three blogs are three condemnations of Palin from writers whose insipid desire to ravage someone they simply don't like takes high precedence over complete facts or issues of importance.
You ARE as bad as those who would assasinate the character of Obama with their words and you are part of the problem. When he wins my sincere hope is that ALL of you on both sides who engage in such nonsensical angry "prose" will have no serious place in the world of journalism.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/29/2008 @ 11:07am
Troll jayneslilsis, the "caviar and lobster" canard has been shown to be false. Nice try.
Posted by miranda2060 at 10/29/2008 @ 11:12am
well, hate to sort of agree with the righties, but...
this HAS been kinda played out by now, has it not?
move on...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/29/2008 @ 11:13am
Posted by miranda2060 at 10/29/2008 @ 11:12am
"Troll jayneslilsis, the "caviar and lobster" canard has been shown to be false."
Unlike the $4 million dollar house that Obama got for $2 million through Tony Rezko.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:22am
Posted by miranda2060 at 10/29/2008 @ 11:12am
If you've ready any of my other posts, you'll know I'm not a troll, but if it makes you feel better to call people names, by all means...
I saw a copy of the room service receipt as proof. If this receipt has been proven to be a photoshopped fraud, please point me in the direction of the proof.
Thanks
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:23am
move on...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/29/2008 @ 11:13am
If only they knew how.
Just a few more days.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/29/2008 @ 11:26am
Posted by Benchrest at 10/29/2008 @ 11:26am
"If only they knew how. Just a few more days."
What does it feel like to be a member of a cult?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:34am
I saw a copy of the room service receipt as proof. If this receipt has been proven to be a photoshopped fraud, please point me in the direction of the proof.
Thanks
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:23am
Would this do?
http://tinyurl.com/5ag8pt
Posted by asian_observer at 10/29/2008 @ 11:35am
http://www.eandppub.com/2008/10/ny-post-retract.html
Quoth the Raven: "Google More."
Posted by Dos at 10/29/2008 @ 11:37am
And specifically about that receipt...
http://tinyurl.com/5zvoc3
Posted by asian_observer at 10/29/2008 @ 11:37am
I saw a copy of the room service receipt as proof. If this receipt has been proven to be a photoshopped fraud, please point me in the direction of the proof.
Thanks
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:23am | ignore this person | warn this person
...with pleasure:
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/o/obama-michelle-lunch.htm
Do you lack the skills to cross check republican filth or are you just dishonest?
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:37am
Nevermind, I just found a retraction by the New York paper that posted the story. Thanks for pointing that out.
Even without that one erroneous example, I'd love to know how much the Obamas have spent on clothing in the past year. I'm willing to bet they could clothe a whole hospital of nurses all by themselves...
I just take issue with the Nation's obvious bias on this issue. To criticize Palin's clothing extravagance, but not all the other candidates as well, is blatantly one-sided.
I say get over it. The clothes thing has been played out. If you're all so confident about winning, which you should be at this point, why "beat a dead horse"? All it does is make you appear cruel and petty. *the "you" here is the Nation's bloggers*
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:39am
Even without that one erroneous example, I'd love to know how much the Obamas have spent on clothing in the past year. I'm willing to bet they could clothe a whole hospital of nurses all by themselves...
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:39am
er...did the DNC pay for the Obamas' clothes?
Posted by asian_observer at 10/29/2008 @ 11:41am
Whose confident about winning?
A "hockey mom" (hokey mom!!) claims to speak for the little guy, bashes the "elitists," can't spend money on a foreign policy adviser who can coach her through even the most softball questions without stumbling, blows 150K to remake herself into something she's obviously not: a woman of taste and class.
What don't you get?
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:43am
jayneslilsis
Why on earth do you think the republican vermin had to CONCOCT a phony story about Michele Obama's extravagant spending??
Obviously, they've got a battalion of Nazi drones working around the clock to find ONE BILL that makes the Obamas look bad. They came up empty, so they had to invent something.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:47am
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:43am
"What don't you get?"
She didn't 'blow' $150k to buy clothes, the RNC did. And according to them, she doesn't get to keep them.
And the point is, even if SHE paid for them, the whole thing is a non-issue, because leftist candidates like Kerry spend AT LEAST that much on luxuries.
What about that do YOU not get?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:47am
Do you lack the skills to cross check republican filth or are you just dishonest?
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:37am
So now I'm stupid and dishonest? Nice. But that's not surprising coming from you, rykart.
I googled it when I hear about it the first time to check its veracity. After it's veracity was brought to my attention here, I googled it again and that's when I found out it had been retracted. My apologies.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:48am
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:47am
I mean, how many Nation columns are we going to see written about Nancy Pelosi's $40,000 Georgetown cocktail parties? Kerry's 6 houses? Not many I guess. Which makes you, John Nichols, and your ilk just a bunch of hypocrites. Do you get THAT?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:49am
jayneslilsis
My apologies.
ps---the nut who claimed she was attacked by an Obama supporter who scrawled a backwards B on her face is also a fraud.
McCain is a fraud.
Palin is a fraud.
This late breaking data should help avoid future embarrassing errors.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:51am
jayneslilsis:
You are absolutely right in wanting to know where the Obamas get their clothing. The difference here is: #1 - The Obamas have never pretended to call themselves "hockey moms", or try to sell the BS about being all about "Joe Six Pack" and "Wal-Mart moms"; #2 - the Obamas, if so choose to expend $150K in clothing, have the money, they don't need the party, much less, the contributors' money.
It all comes down to Ms. Palin and the Republican Party being fake and hypocritical. Nevertheless, the subject should be dropped...enough already!
Posted by PRinGA at 10/29/2008 @ 11:55am
Kieth Olbermann pointed out yesterday that Mrs. Palin got more federal pork per ca pita for her state than any other state in the nation. She also tripled taxes on oil co. to give every one in Alaska a 1,200 dollar rebate Talk about wealth redistribution. Am I paying more for gasoline because of her, and did we export Alaskan oil?
Posted by lachatte at 10/29/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:49am | ignore this person | warn this person
Actually, there's nothing hypocritical about someone like Edwards being rich and having a big house while supporting legislation to help poor people, despite republican efforts to paint it that way.
There IS something hypocritical about supporting legislation to make poor people even poorer, stuffing the pockets of the super wealthy while claiming you care about the little guy and hate elitism, while 150 thousand dollars worth of designer crap is hanging off your Alaskan body.
The republican leadership ADMITS this was an absolute disaster for them and showed stupendously poor judgment, so why are YOU still defending it?
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:57am
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:04am |
Per the NY Post (original source of your reference)
October 21, 2008 --
THE source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation. http://tinyurl.com/5nlopb
----------------------------------------
Simply another lie to smear the Dems
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/29/2008 @ 11:59am
@jayneslilsis
The lobster dinner story is not true. Michelle did not even stay at the Waldorf as reported. Please read something else other than Page Six of the New York Post before you blog, or vote, or even open your mouth.
This follow up story from the NYPost
October 21, 2008 --
THE source who told us last week about Michelle Obama getting lobster and caviar delivered to her room at the Waldorf-Astoria must have been under the influence of a mind-altering drug. She was not even staying at the Waldorf. We regret the mistake, and our former source is going to regret it, too. Bread and water would be too good for such disinformation.
www.nypost.com/seven/10212008/gossip/pagesix/room_disservice_134490.htm
Posted by bPoint at 10/29/2008 @ 12:00pm
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:39am
jayne, maybe I missed it...
was there a "I was wrong" encoded in there somewhere?!?!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:02pm
What does it feel like to be a member of a cult?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:34am
Generally, who would you say is to blame for the GOP losing their majorities in the Senate and Congress?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/29/2008 @ 12:11pm
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:39am
Hmmmm . is this true? Of course not...as was pointed out "Google more"
http://tinyurl.com/6e6zo9
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/29/2008 @ 12:12pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 11:57am
"There IS something hypocritical about supporting legislation to make poor people even poorer, stuffing the pockets of the super wealthy while claiming you care about the little guy and hate elitism, while 150 thousand dollars worth of designer crap is hanging off your Alaskan body."
Oh, I see. So it's not the fact that rich people waste money on luxuries that bothers you. After all, you recognize that many Democrats do just that. What bothers you is that REPUBLICANS do it, because you disagree with their policies. In fact, you think the only way that poor people can be helped, apparently, is through redistributionism. Well, that really clears things up. You think the only way to help poor people is to give them money. That clears things up perfectly for me.
Of course, most of the poor people I know are poor precisely because they throw away their money. I know lots of poor people who have been given lots of money, and they invariably throw it away and end up poorer. In fact, most lottery winners end up poorer than they started. I myself have learned from that, apparently you have not yet.
But in any case, doesn't your rationalel just fall apart when you are informed that Palin didn't buy those clothes herself, they were bought through campaign donations, and that she apparently won't be allowed to keep them?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:18pm
I mean shit, rykart, Nancy Pelosi throws away more on caviar in Georgetown in a month than was was spent on Palin's whole wardrobe. That means nothing to you?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:24pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm sure all the people thrown out of work from our steel mills, automobile plants, etc etc etc etc etc will lend a sympathetic ear to your characterization of them as worthless layabouts who thrown their money away. (Just make sure you're wearing kevlar when you give THAT speech!)
Thanks for staying on message.
You're party loyalty would impress the most ardent Soviet dupe.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:24pm
I mean shit, rykart, Nancy Pelosi throws away more on caviar in Georgetown in a month than was was spent on Palin's whole wardrobe. That means nothing to you?----Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:24pm
That's interesting, PONTI.....what's your source for that info?
"truthiness.com"?
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:28pm
Pelosi?
Caviar?
150k a month?
Eee gads!
Obama if FINISHED once the details of STURGEON-gate become public!
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:32pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:24pm
Yeah, rykart, the Democratic Party sure has done a great job for the steel and auto industry in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, right? Just like welfare has been great for the black community?
The policies of your Party have done more to bring poverty to large swaths of this country than any number of Sarah Palins. And like any insane person, you want to keep on trying the same things, expecting different results.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:32pm
Interesting, Pont.
And all this time I was under the misconception we'd been suffering the tortures of the damned under a REPUBLICAN administration for the last 8 miserable years!!
Live and learn.
I'm switching my vote!
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:34pm
Nice selectivity there. The housing bubble creation and bursting is a direct result of the easy credit policies of the Democrats under Barnie Frank and the CRA. The fact that the Republicans failed to stop them makes them complicit, but not responsible. Obama has received far more from FNMA/Freddie Mac than McCain, for example. The fact that the media has managed to fool the American public into blaming the Republicans for this is a public relations coup.
And if things are bad now, what fool thinks things are going to improve with a tax hike and protectionism under Obama? These are the things that turned the stock market crash of '29 into the Great Depression of the '30's. But nobody on the left seems to remember that. But then again, they don't remember how the unions destroyed the auto and steel industries, either, so that's probably an easy sell.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:41pm
I just have one problem, now that I've switched to McCain. It seems he's one of those evil socialists in sheep's clothing who promises to BAIL OUT THE AUTO INDUSTRY.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:42pm
Posted by bPoint at 10/29/2008 @ 12:00pm
Why not read all the way to the bottom before you ream me for not doing my double-checking? See my post here "Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:48am" where I actually apologized for my misinformed post.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 12:42pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 12:02pm
Is an apology not good enough for you, Mask?
See the apology above: Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 11:48am
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 12:44pm
hmmm...confusing! Your boy Alan Greenspan admits the whole sorry mess is owing to Reaganesque republican deregulatory idiocy and the transparently absurd notion that markets are self-regulating.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:45pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:32pm
"Pelosi? Caviar? 150k a month? Eee gads!Obama if FINISHED once the details of STURGEON-gate become public!"
Aww, you think I'm exaggerating? You think I'm being unfair? Why don't you do a little investigating and find out the real truth then? Is it $150,000, or is it $20,000? Let me know when you have a clue!
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:46pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:46pm
You ignoring my simple question?
Posted by Benchrest at 10/29/2008 @ 12:47pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:42pm
"I just have one problem, now that I've switched to McCain. It seems he's one of those evil socialists in sheep's clothing who promises to BAIL OUT THE AUTO INDUSTRY."
Ain't that a bitch? I agree, this policy sucks. The only problem is, Obama will do the same thing, in spades. So, which do you pick? I don't know about you, but I'll go with the lesser evil.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
On the contrary! It sounds like you've uncovered a real bombshell, with this beluga thing. Something's fishy in the House!!!!
It could turn the election around.
Call fox now!
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:50pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:45pm
"hmmm...confusing! Your boy Alan Greenspan admits the whole sorry mess is owing to Reaganesque republican deregulatory idiocy and the transparently absurd notion that markets are self-regulating."
Yes, you are confused! The reason why housing got overheated was easy credit and low interest rates. The low interest rates were Greenspan's fault. The easy credit was Congress's fault. There, consider your self unconfused.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:51pm
In keeping with this blog's utter lack of substance, here we have yet another vacuous, five minute hate entry on Sara Palin. And the editors here once complained of the air-headedness of the campaign! The Nation and its editors ARE the airheadedness of this campaign.
If you're looking for something substantial, something vital to get your teeth into about this campaign and progressivism, here's something by Matt Gonzales to chew on:
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html
It says all that needs to be said about foreign policy and domestic issue lobby Stephin Fetchit, Barak Obama. Progressives vote Nader!
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 12:54pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Neither of us has the economic wherewithal to make a sound decision on what should be done about the collapse of the auto industry.
But clearly, the necessity of bailing out our giant industries, banks, etc with corporate welfare points to the most shocking, blatant and miserable failure of the entire republican economic agenda, as Greenspan, among others now acknowledges.
You're selling flat-earthism, pont.
A few are still buying, but not many.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:56pm
If you liked that for laughs, maybe you can get him to tell you how America was built on genocide, but how dare you accuse him of being an America-hater!
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 11:03am
Genocide by the provisions of the convention of the United Nations in Dec. 1948 is defined as:
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, and includes five types of criminal actions: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
-----
"Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history. He admired the camps for Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination - by starvation and uneven combat - of the red savages who could not be tamed by captivity." P. 202, "Adolph Hitler" by John Toland
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 12:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I bet the Trail of Tears is just a hippy lie!!
yep, a yuck a minute!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:01pm
posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 12:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What do the democrats have to do to lose my vote?
That's easy.
They have to field a pair of candidates more psychotic, repulsive and acutely dangerous to the health of the planet than the republicans have.
What does Nader have to do to gain my vote?
Demonstrate that he can get within 18 light years of the White House.
EVER.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 12:44pm
I'm sorry, jayne. Didn't see that little "My apologies" tucked away there at the end.
You're more honest than most!
Speaking of which... PONTI...still waiting on your "Pelosi throws away more in caviar in a month" news source?
I'll take "Rush mentioned it in his first hour monologue" if that's all you've got!
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 1:04pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 12:56pm
"You're selling flat-earthism, pont.A few are still buying, but not many."
What I call flat-earthism is people who believe that a country that was built on free markets and free enterprise can be fixed by socialist policies that fail everywhere and every other time they are tried. Now THAT is flat earthism, and judging by the content of this blog and this publication, not to mention the national polls, there is no dearth of adherents.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 1:04pm
Crab
Excellent quotation from Toland. One of the many facts that have gone missing in action regarding our history.
As to the decimation of the Indians, Mt. Rushmore memorializes the leading criminals. The site of course, sits on land stolen from the Lakota Sioux.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:07pm
China is failing?
Damn, good news for the rust belt.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:09pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:07pm
"As to the decimation of the Indians, Mt. Rushmore memorializes the leading criminals. The site of course, sits on land stolen from the Lakota Sioux."
God forbid we should call you folks America-haters?
Hey, which monument memorializes the Lakota Sioux criminals who stole their land from the previous tribe?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 1:09pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:03pm
Did you read the Gonzalez article or only the title? Pragmatic vacuity is still vacuity, son.
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 1:10pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:07pm
Damn, man you have swallowed the kool-aid hook, line, and sinker. You must have studied hard in college, nobody is born stupid enough to believe this tripe. For that, you need years of intense training.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 1:11pm
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 1:10pm
Thank goodness only 6 more days of looney lowell.
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 1:18pm
For that, you need years of intense training.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 1:11pm
Where did you study?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:19pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Which tripe is that?
You mean evolution? Global warming? Fiscal responsibility? Honesty? Common sense?
Maybe goddess Palin can save you from "every form of witchcraft."
In these perilous times, you kooks need to stick together!
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:21pm
i think ponti's got a little crush going on......
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2008 @ 1:21pm
Ponti, tell us again how Saddam had wmd's and was purchasing u238 from Niger.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:22pm
I left the other thread...
how exactly did those Natives disappear from the land they had inhabited for generations?
Socialism, I bet.
Actually, it was socialism that caused the founding fathers to drive the savages from their lands, not capitalism. They were channeling Pol Pot way before Pol knew what Marxism was.
Phew, glad I learned that.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:25pm
yes..and when you're through, we'd LOVE to hear that one about Jessica Lynch, the Tawana Brawly of the 3rd Mechanized Unit.
Or maybe about how Al Qaida met with Iraqi agents in Prague.
Or how the Keating 5 grub you're supporting magically tore his way out of his chrysalis of corruption to be reborn as a reformist monarch butterfly!
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:25pm
CRABBIE, I don't know what to say. Such an astonishing, breathtaking, sweeping display of absolute stupid, America-hating ignorance simply should stand on its own, unremarked.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 1:28pm
so, tell us, ponti.
how did it go down way back when?
how is it that my neo-european butt is sitting here in america?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2008 @ 1:32pm
CRABBIE, I don't know what to say
Never stopped you before. What does Victoria Toesening tell you about the deaths of millions of American Natives?
I mean really, to read your words, it could ONLY be socialism that caused the deaths of so many people. It certainly was not greed or Manifest Destiny.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:35pm
how is it that my neo-european butt is sitting here in america?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2008 @ 1:32pm
in the 1890's your ancestors fled Cuba?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:37pm
There were no Indians. They came here later to hog all the good jobs---just like the Palestinians!
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:28pm
Unfair attack on Lynch. Tawanna was her own mouthpiece, backed by Sharpton's loudspeaker.
Lynch told congress the truth. The mouthpiece of lies was the US military and the Bush admin.
so, it would be more appropriate to call Bush the Tawanna Brawly of the White House.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:40pm
Indians?
Because White Father thought he was in....
India..
Men!
Just stop and ask directions already!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:42pm
Who thinks Gov Palin looks "authentic" in her $3500 jacket?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:45pm
crab
I don't really blame jessica THAT much, though she did evidently did agree to participate in Rick Brag's preposterous work of fiction in which it was claimed she was raped by the vicious Iraqis, (though she now insists to have no recollection whatsoever of the ordeal).
The rape charge served its intended function---to further dehumanize the Iraqis and stir up yet more hatred toward them. The Iraqis of course, saved her life and by all believable accounts, sacrificed themselves to care for her, supply her with medicines despite their short supply, and keep her safe.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 1:47pm
Speaking of a "cults" pontificus, do you know that John McCain is SPREADING AMERICA'S WEALTH to FLDS polygamists in Colorado City, Arizona who practice tyranny over women and children and receive 25-30 million a year in taxpayer handouts?...and for 26 years!!!
Watch the video:
http://www.bankingonheaven.com/
BANKING ON HEAVEN . COM
Posted by XPolygamistWife at 10/29/2008 @ 2:09pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 1:04pm
"You're more honest than most!"
That may be a "sideways compliment", but I'll take it. Thanks :)
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 2:12pm
Origin of the name Yucatan
Hernandez de Cordova arrived to the coast of the Yucatan, he asked the inhabitants the name of this land and when they answered him, speaking very rapidly, in their native language "Tetec dtan" "Ma t natic a dtan" which just means "you speak very rapidly; we don't understand your language."
The Spaniards understood the local inhabitants were telling them the name of the land. However, having difficulty pronouncing these words exactly, they ended up calling the place: Yucatan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/29/2008 @ 2:19pm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:35pm
"I mean really, to read your words, it could ONLY be socialism that caused the deaths of so many people. It certainly was not greed or Manifest Destiny."
Yeah, it's a good think that today we're enlightened, and we've gone past all those old human traits like greed, envy, and lust. You guys are good in preaching against greed, how come we never hear you preaching against envy, or jealousy?
Socialism wasn't around when the Europeans pushed the Indians off their land. People were too busy surviving to try to live by foolishness, and universities with tenured professors, shaded in leafy enclaves far from the consequences of their own delusions, were a distant dream that capitalism had not yet fulfilled.
By the way, you DO know that happened four hundred years ago, don't you? Long before America even existed? Or didn't they teach you that much in school?
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 2:41pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 1:18pm
Which should we consider the more important this time, douche-nozzle, the begging or the uneasy laughter? You've been begging like a little puppy now for about a month. The nervous laughter is a bit more longstanding. I'd guess its the begging though: Please, please, Mr. Lowell, help me to feel more comfortable by knowing that you won't be posting here after the election, please. The nervous te-heing doesn't help much anymore with the insults.
LOL
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 3:03pm
"...douche-nozzle,..."
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 3:03pm
Hey, that's a new one!
BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!
THANKS JOHN!!
Posted by Benchrest at 10/29/2008 @ 3:13pm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 1:45pm
Is that the old "Thriller" jacket of Michael Jackson?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:40pm
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/29/2008 @ 2:12pm
No problem. In comparison to PONTI and SJCHER who live and die by "truthiness" and "Rush's first hour monologue"...
you don't even come close to that kind of dishonesty and silliness.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:42pm
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 3:03pm
6 days, looney....then adios until 2011!
heheh
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:44pm
By the way, you DO know that happened four hundred years ago, don't you? Long before America even existed? Or didn't they teach you that much in school? Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hold the phone! You're saying the ethnic cleansing of the North American Indians only took place BEFORE America was a country? !?
In 1807, Thomas Jefferson instructed his War Department that, should any Indians resist against America stealing Indian lands, the Indian resistance must be met with "the hatchet". Jefferson continued, "And...if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, " he wrote, "we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi." Jefferson, the slave owner, continued, "in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them".
In 1812, Jefferson said that American was obliged to push the backward Indians "with the beasts of the forests into the Stony Mountains". One year later Jefferson continued anti-Indian statements by adding that America must "pursue [the Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach".
You and Palin continue to be plagued by "python spirits."
Get help.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 4:05pm
Long before America even existed? Or didn't they teach you that much in school? Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 2:41pm
america has always existed, in Gods mind. It just took a while for the Spaniards to give it up to the people God wanted.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 4:08pm
jayneslilsis: It's spelled "extravagance" and "it's" is not a possessive.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/29/2008 @ 4:08pm
If only the natives had abided by the treaties the US guvt held to, they would have been fine.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 4:14pm
rykart, I agree with almost everything you've posted except your assessment of Jessica Lynch.
Almost immediately, as soon as she was able, Lynch denounced the reports of her being a "hero." As I recall, this was within days of the incident. There's nothing a lowly soldier can do when lies are told except wait for a time when the truth can be exposed.
And, once again, this forum would be a whole lot more enjoyable if people stopped constantly responding with logic or reasonability to the trolls. (Yeah, I do a little of it before I put them on my ignore list, but one short comment usually satisfies my need to combat ignorance.)
Is it possible on this site to have an actual exchange of ideas instead of retorts and insults to the misguided? Remember, logic and reason are no good against mythology, blind faith, and emotions.
Sarah Palin's wardrobe is still relevant to me because of the entire "we are the party of the little guy" rhetoric from the Republicans. It's absurd, and it needs to be exposed as the smokescreen it really is. They are the party of Big Bidness. As W. put it so well (paraphrased), "you are the haves and the have mores. I call you my base."
The "little guys" have been duped into thinking the Repugs with their multiple homes, high end clothing, and tax cuts for the wealthy are going to stop abortion, let people keep their guns, promote institutionalized Christianity, and push America first ideology on the world. The ignorant wingnuts are delusional, and Palin's clothing simply highlights the lies.
It might be a small thing, but it's representative of the hypocrisy of the powerful and wealthy who most definitely don't care about the middle class or poor except for their votes.
Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/29/2008 @ 4:31pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/29/2008 @ 3:44pm
Hehe, please Mr. Lowell, I'm begging, LOL. Te-he haha.
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 4:36pm
ha, douche-nozzle. classic.
Posted by palehorse67 at 10/29/2008 @ 4:54pm
Hi LeeAnn
Don't get me wrong..I feel for Jessica Lynch, who was clearly used for propaganda purposes and a whole, phony narrative built up around her. I can't imagine how much pressure must have been brought to bear on her to toe the line and she did, as you say, publicly declare much of the narrative to be baloney..
however..
She did agree to be the subject of Rick Brag's bestseller fairy tale book about her, in which he claimed she was brutally beaten and raped. She never repudiated these outlandish lies. She now says she can't remember, though Brag claims to have seen a hospital record confirming a sexual assault. (Yes, this is the same Rick Brag fired from the NY Times for plagiarism and lying.)
Personally, I think that's a pretty rotten slap in the face to the Iraqi hospital staff who cared for her, nursed her back to health and prevented her from being killed by the Americans who were attacking the hospital.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 4:55pm
Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/29/2008 @ 4:31pm
If you can tell me how to debate with people that are more concerned with Bill Ayers than they are with the rising split between the economic classes
or with people that think prophecy is a solid basis for policy
or with people that think it is OK to out CIA agents
or with people that want revenge, even if it is against a third party
or think the president sets the cultural values of the country, then hold the Bush admin up as the example to follow
or that think Sarah Palin was the right pick for the country
then maybe I could make you a happier blogger.
till then...sit back, enjoy the humor
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 4:56pm
Hey, pontificus, you red nut case, what do you think of Sarah's trip to New York City with Bristol for a five hour conference? As reported here on The Nation website, Sarah the governor got invited to a FIVE HOUR conference in New York City for women leaders. She asked the conference organizers to invite her then-sixteen-year-old daughter.
Then she asked the taxpayers of Alaska to fly Bristol to New York City. Bristol had no role at the conference.
Then Sarah asked the taxpayers of Alaska to put her and Bristol up in a hotel room that cost $700/night for FOUR nights.
In other words, Sarah and Bristol had a mommy=daughter weekend in New York City. I think a whole lot of mothers and daughters would like a free trip together to NYC. . .
Sarah is so small, so petty. . . she has a puny idea of power. She seems to assume that petty graft (I think stealing airfare and hotel bills from the taxpayers if relatively petty theft) is one of the perks of office.
Or how about this, pontifinut. . . how do you feel about the Alaskan taxpayers paying to fly the THREE Palin girls to the snowmobile race their dad was in?
Palin clearly thinks that along with the power of the governor's office comes some kind of right, an entitlement, to live like the rich and she apparently thinks it is okay for taxpayers to treat her to a rich, luxurious lifestyle.
She is such a ffing hypocrite. She publicly economizes, making a big public gesture selling that plan but then she nickels and dimes the taxpayers for petty perks of power. This is scummy. At least when Ted STevens accepted petty perks of power, he took his bribes and swag from private funders. . Palin skims her perks (aiarfare for her children is wrong) from the taxpayers.
I read, I think on mudflats, that as soon as Sarah b
Posted by Tree_Fitz at 10/29/2008 @ 4:58pm
now ol' sarah's got herself in a bind because now it seems she charged alaska $21,000 for her kids travel expenses, which she later classified as "state business".
hey big spender...
Posted by palehorse67 at 10/29/2008 @ 5:03pm
Posted by palehorse67 at 10/29/2008 @ 4:54pm
Like "douche-nozzle", palehorse67? I thought it fit our little man of mirth, Maskedcaca, just perfectly. Pardon me but I'm going to have to lau.. ha-ha, ho-ho, te-hee, LOL.
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 5:15pm
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 5:15pm
You are such a dork.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/29/2008 @ 5:20pm
she complains of excessive government spending, she has alaskan taxpayers pay travel and lodging for her daughter to the tune of over $20,000. the GOP outfits her for $150,000, which palin claims is inaccurate, the figure is more like $100,000. oops. our bad. that's more than a lot of people make in a year governor. and that's just to outfit you for 3 months.
she accuses obama of being a socialist (even when what she describes sound like communism). what about the interview with governor palin in the new yorker magazine where she actually said "alaska is sometimes described as america's socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources?", the same state that gave all those hockey moms and joe six-packs checks for $1,200 for oil profits? that's a horrible idea isn't it governor?
Posted by palehorse67 at 10/29/2008 @ 5:23pm
Posted by Benchrest at 10/29/2008 @ 5:20pm
Aw, is poor baby feel a touch irritable today? Why not follow laughing boy's lead and try a little laughter - what's your name, douche-nozzle? Te-he, LOL, ha-ha.
Posted by john lowell at 10/29/2008 @ 5:38pm
Hebrews 10:31 states: "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posted by winyahn at 10/29/2008 @ 5:57pm
Nietzsche states: Terrible it is to be alone with the judge and avenger of one's own law. Thus is a star thrown out into the void and into the icy breath of solitude.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 6:00pm
bunch of weirdos on this thread reich und links. vote obama/biden
Posted by reality check at 10/29/2008 @ 6:04pm
Flame on, Nation bloggers!!
To be fair to Palin (who cares) they may actually keep the clothes. That have been tailored for her. But they'll probably give them back. I suppose that they could auction them off... maybe Tina Fey can pick up some new items, then wear them on SNL.
The makeup is a bonafide complaint, however. About 30 grand (and counting) has been spent on a facial paint job for her. And hair styling. This has all got to be re-done every day. That money ain't coming back.
Just think... I spent all that time learning to speak in tongues. That Rosetta stone software is the bomb! Now their party is going to LOSE, LOSE, LOSE.
And they keep quoting that "... to each according to his needs" statement, attributing it to Marx, who never said that. It was some french guy. Someone out there has the name, but it definitely was not Marx.
Posted by ficheye at 10/29/2008 @ 6:22pm
But then again, they don't remember how the unions destroyed the auto and steel industries, either, so that's probably an easy sell.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 12:41pm
Yeah, ponti, those EVIL labor unions! If those bastards hadn't helped usher in the middle class, then people might not complain about their shrinking living standards, and the Republicans could continue to pick their pockets for the wealthy.
Posted by jmusolino at 10/29/2008 @ 6:32pm
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 4:05pm
"Get help."
What you need to get help for is hatred of America. What does Jefferson's war against the Indians have to do with me? Why should I care about that any more than the Indians' slaughtering of each other? Why does your worldview always boil down to blaming the US for something? What you and your ilk need to get help for is your indoctrination, your brainwashing, and your naked hatred of this country that is the premise of your every misguided belief.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 6:37pm
"It might be a small thing, but it's representative of the hypocrisy of the powerful and wealthy who most definitely don't care about the middle class or poor except for their votes."
And you think Obama 'cares' about you, and therefore you should vote for him because he promises you something you didn't earn, after stealing it from someone else? Grow up, LeeAnnG.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 6:39pm
FAIR WARNING
* Comments: 14 * Read Comments * Leave a Comment
Posted: 3:59 am October 29, 2008
Is Joe Biden the foot-in-mouth candidate - or is he the Obama campaign's designated teller of inconvenient truths?
First, the Democratic veep hopeful declared that America's enemies will generate "an international crisis, to test the mettle of" a President Obama.
Scary - but likely true.
And yesterday Biden let slip that he and Obama apparently have a sliding scale to determine who's "super-rich."
Obama, after all, has been promising a tax cut for the "middle class" - those making $200,000 a year or less.
Biden yesterday lowered that bar.
"What we're saying," he told a Pennsylvania TV interviewer, "is that [our] tax break doesn't need to go to people making . . . $1.4 million. It should go to [people] making under $150,000 a year."
Oops. That's a 25 percent downward redefinition of "middle class."
An Obama mouthpiece quickly dismissed the discrepancy as just another one of Joe the Senator's gaffes.
But consider: The campaign has a new TV commercial out declaring that families - not individuals - earning $200,000 or less would qualify for a tax cut. Two incomes - not one.
And, as most middle-class wage-earners know, that's a huge difference.
As Sen. John McCain said yesterday: "At this rate, it won't be long before Sen. Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 should get a tax increase."
We wouldn't be surprised - what with leading congressional Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank licking their chops at the chance to raise taxes.
"We'll have to raise taxes, ultimately," Frank declared over the weekend.
Don't say you weren't warned.
Posted by pontificus at 10/29/2008 @ 6:44pm
Right, pontificrap
Your Klan is REAL in tune with working Americans...real Americans, like joe the NON-plumber, a simpering fraud whose entire life is a beaded necklace of lies.
It must bug the hell out of you to know that the plumber's union...(you know, a group devoted to bettering the economic plight of REAL plumbers, not fake ones) has enthusiastically supported Obama.
Hatred of America? I see. So the only way to remain an American in good standing in your book is to rewrite American history out of all recognition, right? Our entire heritage from the extermination of the indians to Abu Ghraib has been one uninterrupted act of pure goodness! Thanks, I'll take reality over your loathsome, cotton candy universe.
Maybe after Palin burns all the history books, archives , documents, libraries and short circuits the internet, people will believe your sanitized Disneyland of an America, but that hasn't happened yet.
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 6:56pm
Quoting Thomas Jefferson shows hatred for America.
I'll have to keep that in mind, pontifiloon!
Posted by rykart at 10/29/2008 @ 7:09pm
Tell me the story of the flying horseys again Uncle Lare...
Posted by crabwalk at 10/29/2008 @ 9:49pm
"jayneslilsis: It's spelled "extravagance" and "it's" is not a possessive." Posted by LeeAnnG at 10/29/2008 @ 4:08pm
Are you questioning my intelligence, or are you just being an ass?
"It's" is a contraction of it is and "its" is possessive. I know. And if you look at my post @ 11:39am, I spelled extravagance correctly.
Have you NEVER made a spelling error posting online? If not, then cheers to you, but you might not want to start nickpicking things like that in other's posts, unless you want the same done to yours. Just sayin'.
Posted by jayneslilsis at 10/30/2008 @ 08:17am