RNC spent $150,000 on Palin's clothes by SignyM

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

RNC spent $150,000 on Palin's clothes

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Saturday, October 25, 2008 05:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5642
PAGE 3 of 3

Friday, October 24, 2008 2:14 PM

Oh yah, sorry bout that, Vet..

It's been a rough week, had to ditch pushing a cab, it's just not *enough* to feed the tax vultures and me at the same time, and I been runnin short on sleep and food besides, given that I have re-entered the security business, taking over coverage of a lot of normal ordinary stuff that the wanna-be gestapo loons of Wackenhut, Group4, Pinkertons and the like wouldn't touch cause there's no chance at lording over people and getting all jackboot with em.

An unexpected benefit is that since all the slime has gravitated to DepHomeSec and airport security, we're finally getting some decent personnel on the bottom end, a lot of whom are quite experienced, having left the industry when it got all scummy back in the 90's.

Anyhows, it's not easy to be at the top of your game on short sleep and no food, and one can imagine watching the political fatcats gobbling away at the tax trough while I fuckin starve makes me a little distracted and crabby.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 25, 2008 3:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
The difference is, when people donate money to a campaign, they know that political ads for millions of $$$ will be part of that campaign (regardless of how effective they may or my not be). They don't donate their cash so that one of the candidates can go on a shopping spree that a 16-year-old Valley girl with a credit card and no credit limit would be ashamed of.

So explain the difference between the Obama campaign spending money to make their candidate look good by producing and showing TV ads and the McCain/Palin campaign spending one thousandth of that amount to make Gov. Palin look good by getting her some clothes.

As I noted before, current gender bias requires that female candidates show up in a good looking wardrobe, and - unlike a man, who can show up in the same suit every time - they have to have an assortment of different outfits.

Quote:
Maybe you could tell me how this can be reconciled with McCain's position on this issue back in 1993/1994.

Once again, it's down to gender bias. Sen. Mccain was probably thinking of male candidates like himself, who just need a couple of suits, not female candidates, who are required by the mores of the time to have an extensive wardrobe to campaign. Recall the in-depth analysis of Sen. Clinton's wardrobe, and google for articles about Michelle Obama's latest outfit.

Quote:
The "fiscal responsibility" party goes on a wild shopping spree for clothes and anyone who points out that this is fiscally irresponsible is a spiteful child. Noted.

"Wild shopping spree"? Probably no more than the budget for a female lead in "Lipstick Jungle", "Sex In the City", a major film, etc. And it's for the same purpose, to have your character look in character. The 'wild shopping spree' line also supports the 'spiteful child' suggestion.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 25, 2008 5:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Gov Palin looks like a million bucks, so I'd say she's already saving the country some money!!

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE