By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The Sarah Palin Thread.

Brown v. the Board of Education?
Loving v. Virginia?
Marbury v. Madison?



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Around the Network
Panel: Palin abused power, broke no laws in trooper case at CNN.

So she's guilty of power abuse, but not breaking the law. That means she's also guilty of lying about it.

The bipartisan investigation voted unanimously to adopt the report, which says that not firing Wooten was a "likely contributing factor" in her decision to fire Monegan.

The best part of this entire ordeal? Hearing news reports say "Troopsr Wooten" repeatedly.

Say it fast, say it often.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

She should've said Lawrence v. Texas, hahaha.



The Ghost of RubangB said:
She should've said Lawrence v. Texas, hahaha.

Damn straight.  She probably does disagree with it.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network

http://www.palinaspresident.com/

It's interactive and it has sound.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Reading through this thread again, it's rather humorous to see some of you go after Palin so viciously.

It's even better when the story gets debunked and you guys look like ignorant assholes afterward. Not that it matters... Some of you just go find another bullshit story to prop up as the be-all, end-all explanation of who Sarah Palin is as a person.

I don't like Palin's policies one bit. I think she's unqualified to be vice president, but I also believe that vice-presidents are pretty useless anyway so I'm not going to get that riled up about it. Some of the people in this thread are proving themselves to look like real partisan pricks over her, to be honest. Any attempt to look at her objectively is gone. Sad, really.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Palin, woman of the people.

Weekly Standards View:

Fashion Experts on Palin's $150,000 Wardrobe

Everyone is talking about Sarah Palin's $150,000 in clothing and accessories from department stores like Saks and Neiman Marcus. To echo my colleague, Palin is a woman who presumably had few television-worthy outfits (or accessories or makeup or haircuts), nor the personal income to buy them herself. In Alaska, Palin shopped at consignment stores and wore $89 pumps, so it's not as if she is an extravagant woman (see Michelle Malkin for pre-makeover photos).

As Glamour's fashion blog notes, Palin's look is "that difficult combination of pretty, polished, down-to-earth, professional, and most importantly, electable." And like it or not, a woman in the spotlight like Palin needs to maintain that look.

But is $150,000 unreasonable? New York magazine's fashion blog breaks down outfit costs from Saks and Neiman Marcus and discovers that just six outfit combinations alone cost over $16,000. For $150,000, Palin could purchase approximately 34 outfits. Fashion blogger Amy Odell concludes,

Now, McCain picked Palin on August 29. That's 67 days of campaigning until November 4, so in theory she has enough clothes to repeat outfits just once, maybe twice as we get closer to Election Day--or, with smart mixing, maybe she doesn't need to repeat at all! After all, she's giving televised speeches daily and being photographed, so wearing repeats is a no-no...

In conclusion: A $150,000 clothes budget might not be the wisest use of campaign money. But given the demands of Palin's job, the figure is not as outrageous as it seems at first.

After all, have Michelle Obama, Cindy McCain, or Hillary Clinton worn the same dress or pantsuit for more than one major appearance yet?

 

FoxNews:

McCain: Palin's Wardrobe Will Be Donated to Charity

John McCain said Wednesday that Sarah Palin's posh wardrobe will be donated to charity, after it was disclosed that the Republican National Committee spent about $150,000 on her clothing, hair styling, makeup and other "campaign accessories" in September. 

"They will be giving all that back to charity, donating all of that to charity when the campaign is over," the Republican presidential nominee told MyFox Philadelphia Wednesday. "That is the appropriate way to handle it." 

The campaign said earlier that it was the intent all along to donate Palin's wardrobe to charity after the race ends. 

Politico.com first reported on the clothing bill Tuesday evening. 

The expenses include $75,062 spent at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis and $41,850 in St. Louis in early September. The committee also reported spending $4,100 for makeup and hair consulting. 

The RNC also spent $4,902 at Atelier, a stylish men's clothing store in New York. Other purchases included a $92 romper and matching hat with ears for Palin's baby, Trig, at Pacifier, a baby store in Minneapolis. 

McCain announced Palin as his running mate on Aug. 29, just before the Republican National Convention, held Sept. 1 to 4 in St. Paul, Minn. 

Most of the expenses were initially incurred by Jeff Larson, a Republican consultant who was the CEO of the host committee for the Republican National Convention in early September. Federal Election Commission records show that the RNC reimbursed Larson for the expenses -- a total of $132,457. 

Larson is a partner with FLS Connect, a firm that has been retained by the McCain campaign and the RNC to undertake a phone calling campaign on behalf of McCain. Media reports have linked the firm to negative calls aimed at Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Larson's previous company worked for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign, conducting phone calls in South Carolina opposing McCain. 

Larson's office referred calls to the RNC. A committee spokesman said only that the RNC has acted properly in reimbursing Larson for the costs.

A review by Politico of expenditures by Barack Obama's campaign and the Democratic National Committee revealed "no similar spending."


I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

Forgot to highlight the funny part.  It had to be bought by the RNC, because of this line from a certain law. McCain–Feingold Act Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002:


``(b) Prohibited Use.--
``(1) In general.--A contribution or donation described in
subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal
use.
``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a
contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to
personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill
any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would
exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or
individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including--
``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
``(B) a clothing purchase;

LOL.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

steven787 said:

Forgot to highlight the funny part.  It had to be bought by the RNC, because of this line from a certain law. McCain–Feingold Act Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002:


``(b) Prohibited Use.--
``(1) In general.--A contribution or donation described in
subsection (a) shall not be converted by any person to personal
use.
``(2) Conversion.--For the purposes of paragraph (1), a
contribution or donation shall be considered to be converted to
personal use if the contribution or amount is used to fulfill
any commitment, obligation, or expense of a person that would
exist irrespective of the candidate's election campaign or
individual's duties as a holder of Federal office, including--
``(A) a home mortgage, rent, or utility payment;
``(B) a clothing purchase;

LOL.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson