Hi, I'm VALUE! Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 1) The extra money for hair & makeup came out of McCain's barber budget. 2) It's a ridiculous double-standard that her figures were specifically revealed while no one else's grand sum total was put out there as well. We have no point to compare it to, and no link to a source in the article, which is a really bad job by the writer at Politico.com. 3) I'm no fashion expert, but I'm willing to bet women's clothing and makeup is far more expensive at the same level as a man's clothing (and any makeup they may need). Women who are viewing this board can feel free to confirm. 4) Whoever made the decision to pay for Palin's family clothing expenses on the RNC's dime, regardless of whether they have to "donate it to charity" (yeah, okay, I'll believe that when I see it) made a bad decision. She has how many kids/grandkids? Plus her husband? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 Are you really mocking people who have to be on soup lines?? I would believe that would be a remark made on the assumption that you are not one of the people who will be receiving a tax increase. What do you think the welfare state is, numbskull? Where do you think the money for that soup line comes from? Keep giggling. classy as ever Obama is saving alot of $ on ties I counted 4 and I believe they are reversible clip-ons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Diablo Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 What do you think the welfare state is, numbskull? Where do you think the money for that soup line comes from? Keep giggling. That hardly qualifies for the redistribution of wealth ... numbskull and where exactly are you getting your expenses facts for edwards? please link the source :rolleyes: keep on giggling,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hi, I'm VALUE! Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 That hardly qualifies for the redistribution of wealth ... numbskull and where exactly are you getting your expenses facts for edwards? please link the source :rolleyes: keep on giggling,... The same Politico.com article goes on to state: Then, there was Democrat John Edwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Diablo Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 The same Politico.com article goes on to state: and he wore nothing else? just a hoboken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sublicon Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 That hardly qualifies for the redistribution of wealth ... numbskull and where exactly are you getting your expenses facts for edwards? please link the source :rolleyes: keep on giggling,... The welfare state doesn't count as redistribution of wealth? Really? Where do you think the money comes from that pays for those programs? You want to take Obama's words as socialism, when you're blind to the fact that if that's socialism, then we already have socialistic policies set in stone right now that you probably agree with. Taxes are a redistribution of wealth! Where do you think your money goes? As for Edwards, see here. Take that, a haircut a week, times the 10 week period that Palin is on the campaign trail before election day, give or take . . do the math. Actually, I did the math. Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Diablo Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 The welfare state doesn't count as redistribution of wealth? Really? Where do you think the money comes from that pays for those programs? You want to take Obama's words as socialism, when you're blind to the fact that if that's socialism, then we already have socialistic policies set in stone right now that you probably agree with. Taxes are a redistribution of wealth! Where do you think your money goes?As for Edwards, see here. Take that, a haircut a week, times the 10 week period that Palin is on the campaign trail before election day, give or take . . do the math. Actually, I did the math. Enjoy. -- welfare hardly qualifies as the redistribution of wealth as much as a responsibility by the state/govt to provide the citizen with a token act that acts as a safety net to their well being --- Im proud you can do the math... but he didnt have any added clothing expenses during that time other than a haircut? ?? and who's adding up obama's mates wardrobe tally? never mind .. I dont really give a damm this whole thread is idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sublicon Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 -- welfare hardly qualifies as the redistribution of wealth as much as a responsibility by the state/govt to provide the citizen with a token act that acts as a safety net to their well being --- The taxing of citizens and using the funds accrued from said taxing to fund programs where other people receive cash (e.g., welfare checks, social security checks, etc.) is a redistribution of wealth. I dont really give a damm this whole thread is idiotic. We agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deke Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 PEOPLE WITH ACCESS TO LOTS OF MONEY SPENDING LOTSA MONEY SHOCKING LOONY LIBZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copper Kettle Posted October 22, 2008 Author Share Posted October 22, 2008 2) It's a ridiculous double-standard that her figures were specifically revealed while no one else's grand sum total was put out there as well. We have no point to compare it to, and no link to a source in the article, which is a really bad job by the writer at Politico.com. 4) Whoever made the decision to pay for Palin's family clothing expenses on the RNC's dime, regardless of whether they have to "donate it to charity" (yeah, okay, I'll believe that when I see it) made a bad decision. She has how many kids/grandkids? Plus her husband? Really? Public Document, Schedule F Payee is one Jeff Larson, who also runs the McCain robocall campaign, and who oddly enough, ran the Bush robocall campaign AGAINST McCain in 2000. Jeff Larson also has given Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) a good deal (that is, discounted below market) on a rental unit in DC. By the way, when it was brought up to the campaign that there was some legal and ethical gray area for this, that's when it was stated the clothing would be auctioned for charity. You are not allowed to use campaign funds as a personal slush fund. Maybe this whole thing is more amusing than anything else, but I think it is further evidence -- as if we need any more -- of the incompetence of the McCain campaign. Can't wait for The Daily Show and Colbert Report take on this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 22, 2008 Share Posted October 22, 2008 LOONY LIBZ ***DRINK*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Puddy Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 I don't get what the big deal is. John McCain, circa 1993: Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment before the Senate is a very simple one. It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases, noncampaign automobile expenses, country club memberships, and vacations or other trips that are noncampaign in nature. ...The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly. ... If we in Congress learned one thing from President Clinton's $200 haircut last week, it should be that the public does not approve of its elected officials being treated as royalty. We should be no different. The solution to this problem is simple; restrict the use of campaign funds solely to campaign purposes. ... I point out these abuses, in my view what are abuses, because they are certainly not what the average contributor intends for their funds to go to. John McCain, 1994: It is time the Congress, and those whose privilege it is to serve there, learn to live within its means. Restricting the use of campaign funds for personal purposes is a vital first step in that direction. A man of principles! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisg19 Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August. Actually, if Edwards had a $400 haircut a week for 10 weeks . . it'd be . . *gets out a calculator* . . . $4,000! Since we are only talking hair and makeup, it seems this would be a more appropriate comparison. Of course that would be assuming there were actually 10 weeks in September.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The liberal media thought control at work. LOL. Look out there are snakes under you bed!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 LOL. Look out there are snakes under you bed!!!! You must be the last idiot in America who can still deny this. You amuse us all ostrich. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 You must be the last idiot in America who can still deny this. Misleeds: if the echo chamber told you that 1+1 = 3, you'd blindly agree and claim anyone that claims otherwise is part of the mythical beast. There is nothing to deny. Even many republican politicians admit this, but it is such an great weapon of mass distraction in controlling the irrational. It is such an effective tool that the willfully ignorant such as yourself, don't have to pay attention to reality. You can use the mythical beast to cover anyone or anything that you have been programed not to read or listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Misleeds: if the echo chamber told you that 1+1 = 3, you'd blindly agree and claim anyone that claims otherwise is part of the mythical beast. There is nothing to deny. Even many republican politicians admit this, but it is such an great weapon of mass distraction in controlling the irrational. It is such an effective tool that the willfully ignorant such as yourself, don't have to pay attention to reality. You can use the mythical beast to cover anyone or anything that you have been programed not to read or listen to. Ok ostrich. Keep living in your mythical world where in your dreams the media plays it fair to all sides. And loosen the tin foil hat, it's getting a tad tight around your little head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Ok ostrich.Keep living in your mythical world where in your dreams the media plays it fair to all sides. And loosen the tin foil hat, it's getting a tad tight around your little head. Keep inventing dialogue and justifying your ignorance. Your bitterness blinds you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Your stupidity blinds us all. Gives us a good laugh, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC Devs Fan Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) -- welfare hardly qualifies as the redistribution of wealth as much as a responsibility by the state/govt to provide the citizen with a token act that acts as a safety net to their well being --- I would argue that welfare is the essence of redistribution of wealth as those with money are giving their hard earned dollars to suport those who aren't as fortunate. Or do you think the people on welfare are paying for their benefits? Argue all you want about it being a responsibility, that argument doesn't hold water if you are saying this isn't redistribution of wealth. Just because someone isn't getting a dollar bill put in their pocket doesn't mean thay aren't getting something of value. Oops, I forgot, they are getting a dollar bill put in their pocket too. Edited October 23, 2008 by SC Devs Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Your stupidity blinds us all.Gives us a good laugh, too. When was your programming altered to laugh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 When was your programming altered to laugh? The minute you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 The minute you posted. That is actually pretty funny for you. Congrats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sublicon Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 Of course that would be assuming there were actually 10 weeks in September.... I meant approx 10 weeks from being picked as VP til Election day (it's actually about 8). If you're looking at it on a monthly basis (as I see the $150,000 represents, mah bad) - he'd spend even less really. I don't care to be honest, the lady has to look good, whatever. There are bigger issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrthemike Posted October 23, 2008 Share Posted October 23, 2008 (edited) Yea, I don't care either. I didn't give them money! HAHA. Actually, please, keep blowing the money on clothes! Edited October 23, 2008 by mrthemike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts