Sarah Palin, attractive, but

She thinks Hockey moms are dogs with lipstick! Its true, I saw it just a few minutes ago in her acceptance speech at the convention!

Joey

The Sydney Morning Herald said:And she warned Democrats that she was definitely much more than a pretty face, quipping: "You know, they say the difference between a hockey mum and a pit bull? Lipstick."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/us-election/palin-lets-them-have-it-a-pitbull-with-lipstick/2008/09/04/1220121412951.html

It could be spun either way but the way SHE SPOKE THE WORDS it really did not come out well. It sounded like she called every soccer mom a dog and that her male speech writer was Dick Cheney himself.

It got a laugh... which was what she was looking for

Ms. Palin, the '80s called and they want their bangs back.

Mmmm... she also calls herself a hockey mom. Self deprecating humor, anyone?

wreckerboy wrote: Ms. Palin, the '80s called and they want their bangs back.

The ’60s called, too. They want their pre-women's movement "spunky gal" archetype back.

Margie

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

wreckerboy wrote: Ms. Palin, the '80s called and they want their bangs back.

The ’60s called, too. They want their pre-women's movement "spunky gal" archetype back. Margie

You nailed that one! I had a hard time listening to her. Interestingly, she really hit a good chord with my wife though.

Margie....don't you realize that "dissing" Ms. Palin is sexist? (At least according to the Republican Party) Or is this like the case where non-white people can't ever be racist....only white people can be racist?

I realize some people see her as the second coming of Reagan (only with boobs), but they may want to listen to both sides of her mouth talking: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014545.php

There's a lot of inconsistencies for someone with only two years of executive-level experience.

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

wreckerboy wrote: Ms. Palin, the '80s called and they want their bangs back.

The ’60s called, too. They want their pre-women's movement "spunky gal" archetype back. Margie

Meow.....CATFIGHT!!!!!!

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

wreckerboy wrote: Ms. Palin, the '80s called and they want their bangs back.

The ’60s called, too. They want their pre-women's movement "spunky gal" archetype back. Margie

Seriously... what was she doing out-of-doors wearing shoes and such. I'm sure there was pie that needed bakin' somewhere?

I liked her bangs - but I drive 80s cars, wear Wayfarers and still think Tawny Kitain crawling across a hood covered in oil is classy. I rule.

minimac wrote:

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

wreckerboy wrote: Ms. Palin, the '80s called and they want their bangs back.

The ’60s called, too. They want their pre-women's movement "spunky gal" archetype back. Margie

Meow.....CATFIGHT!!!!!!

i guess we should expect Mrs. Palin's curt reply then...

You fools. There's no way Palin would knowingly tangle with Margie.

I think i saw Tommy making another hole in the backyard at Casa De Suddard,and said something about his mom needs another patio.

I miss Gabe.

minimac wrote:

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

wreckerboy wrote: Ms. Palin, the '80s called and they want their bangs back.

The ’60s called, too. They want their pre-women's movement "spunky gal" archetype back. Margie

Meow.....CATFIGHT!!!!!!

That might be the hottest thing ever mentioned on this board.

I liked the speech. I thought she was good.

One thing I was glad to see was somebody FINALLY talking about reducing the size of government. McCain hasn't, and of course neither have the other two.

I like that she has foreign policy experience because Alaska is right next to Russia. :)

She gave a speech, it was written by the GOP's speech writers. It had to be rewritten this week because they were expecting a man and needed to feminize it. Not that anyone over there is being sexist.

DILYSI Dave wrote:

minimac wrote:

Marjorie Suddard wrote:

wreckerboy wrote: Ms. Palin, the '80s called and they want their bangs back.

The ’60s called, too. They want their pre-women's movement "spunky gal" archetype back. Margie

Meow.....CATFIGHT!!!!!!

That might be the hottest thing ever mentioned on this board. I liked the speech. I thought she was good. One thing I was glad to see was somebody FINALLY talking about reducing the size of government. McCain hasn't, and of course neither have the other two.

So, skappes, you're saying that our speech writers are better than your speech writers but your speech readers are better than our speech readers?

Oh, and we all know that Da O has lots of foreign policy experience. He's an expert now that he took a one week world tour. Before that, he was just a crooked politician from Chicago. Now he's a world expert.

Anyway, doesn't really matter. Da O looses in November. Little Mac has it, 80% probability (today).

Dr. Hess wrote: Anyway, doesn't really matter. Da O looses in November. Little Mac has it, 80% probability (today).

According to?

I like it so much that you are on the other side. :)

Dr. Hess wrote: So, skappes, you're saying that our speech writers are better than your speech writers but your speech readers are better than our speech readers? Oh, and we all know that Da O has lots of foreign policy experience. He's an expert now that he took a one week world tour. Before that, he was just a crooked politician from Chicago. Now he's a world expert. Anyway, doesn't really matter. Da O looses in November. Little Mac has it, 80% probability (today).

Gimp wrote:

Dr. Hess wrote: Anyway, doesn't really matter. Da O looses in November. Little Mac has it, 80% probability (today).

According to?

According to Dr.Hess.

Ah, the same Dr Hess that predicted just months ago a Hillary Clinton presidency.

I called, and I want a pre-women's movement "spunky gal." spunky.

John Brown wrote: I miss Gabe.

I think you misspelled "Noelle."

Here's how I see it, two things.

First, I think a great President needs to surround themselves with great people, and lead them in a good way. While Palin may be ok, I don't think she is one of the great Republicans that McCain could have chosen to lead this country. So IMHO, McCain is questionable in his ability to surround himself with great people.

Second, I hope that a President is capable of deep thought and careful deliberation. McCain has admitted that he's sometimes quick to decide, and he's willing to live with the concequences. While he may be able, I'm not sure if the rest of the country is willing to. This decision seems very much an example of that, and it worries me deeply that McCain will quickly react to matters that require careful deliberation, and our country will be living with those consequences for years, if not decades.

This is on top of my thinking that McCain isn't a real fiscal conservative, since he's not told how he's going to pay for his plan to keep troops in Iraq for how ever long it takes.

I just can't possibly support a "mavrick" that shows signs of being fiscally irresponsible, makes decisions without really deliberating, and isn't willing to surround himself with the best available people.

So far, McCain is 0 for 3 on my basics meter, and that's not even counting the main issues.

Oh, and about the speech, and what she said (and some of the other Republicans last night), well, your party has had 8 years to do what they said, and not only have we gotten a MUCH larger deficit, there's a lot of arguing about personal freedoms, government is bigger, my taxes are not lower, people are loosing jobs- why should we give your party any more time to fix what you broke? I thought it was really funny how often I said that the last 8 years have been counter to what was being said. And don't give me the terrorist excuse- the new president is going to have the SAME issues- so how can I trust a party that's been doing this for 8 years?

If you think the O's words are wothless, how can we put ANY value on all of the R's words? They are just as wortless. Actually, less than that, based on 8 years of "action".

Sorry Doc, gotta come up with something better.

Eric