Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ManyMoose who wrote (83470)	9/10/2008 8:23:29 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542088

So when McCain used it was it a gaffe? Tasteless and baseless then too? I think you think you are making concessions when what you are really doing is just being a partisan. I'm sure you feel innocent as all get out- but considering McCain used exactly the same line, in this very political race, it's a bit hollow.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (83470)	9/10/2008 8:45:02 PM
From: NAG1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542088

MM, <<That's been going on since before Palin was born. She has nothing to do with it.>> True it has been going on for a long time but she has everything to do with it. Mayor Palin and governor Palin partook when it was in her city's and state's best interest. Palin hired a lobbyist for a town with at most, 9 thousand people and got several millions of dollars. She kept the money for the bridge to nowhere after being for it and then being against it when the political winds changed and didn't give it back as she has implied. And all of it is above board, well documented, legal with nothing wrong with it EXCEPT when you then try to sell yourself as someone who is against these practices and now wants to be a reformer by ignoring your past. She would have more credibility if she said she partook but now sees that, in the best interest of the country, she was wrong. Same thing if Obama would say he has tons of executive experience. He doesn't, no matter how you want to try to dress up his resume(or put lipstick on it since this is what is driving this stupid controversy). You would be all over that comment if he actually had made it. If this wasn't politics and if Palin was applying for an anti-earmark job with her resume, no way she would be hired unless the people doing the hiring were wanting to get inside the mind of those asking for earmarks. Neal

To: ManyMoose who wrote (83470)	9/10/2008 8:51:59 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542088

The point is that they are going after Obama for exorbitant earmarks while painting Palin as some kind of earmark saint, when she has been greed personified in getting them for Wasilla. She certainly DOES have something to do with it. I think the problem with your pass is that you used words that sounded less like a pass than an absolution. Even calling it a gaffe is silly to me, but then my mominlaw had never heard the expression before and immediately thought it was connected to the funny lipstick line. So I suppose there are many who don't know the expresssion. Like Lane, I think people should admit their own linguistic limitations, rather than blaming the person using them appropriately.

To: ManyMoose who wrote (83470)	9/11/2008 9:01:40 AM
From: Suma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542088

MM McCain used the same term in defining Hillary's health plan. Cheney used it while slamming some other plan. I have come to the conclusion that this was NOT a slam at Palin at all. That word lipstick is omnipresent because she used it in her convention speech so everyone tends to think of it as her coined expression... It is not. As Lane has said Civil Service Workers use it.. It's just that some of us like myself were not aware that it was so commonly used to describe plans that were not going to work or duplication of plans..