Bogus "Lipstick on a pig" controversy

"Challenged about how she could be sure that Obama was referring to Palin, (former Massachusetts governor Jane) Swift replied, "She's the only one of the four presidential or vice presidential candidates who wears lipstick."

*sigh* We are a country of morons lead by bigger morons...
 
[quote name='greydt']"Challenged about how she could be sure that Obama was referring to Palin, (former Massachusetts governor Jane) Swift replied, "She's the only one of the four presidential or vice presidential candidates who wears lipstick."[/QUOTE]

...that we know of. :shock:
 
It wouldn't surprise me if it was a low-key jab at her, but who the fuck cares?
If it was indeed a shot at her, then Obama is a dick... and the McCain party is a collective of whiny pussies.

Anyone addressing REAL issues this election period?
 
Reality's Fringe;4840335]It wouldn't surprise me if it was a low-key jab at her said:
Anyone addressing REAL issues this election period?[/B]
Click to expand...

The time for addressing issues has past.

The time for mudslinging is now.
 
I mean, even if Obama had in mind Palin's comments about lipstick on a pitbull, I still don't see how this comment could in any way be heard to mean that Palin is a pig. It might be a riff on the imagery she used, but nothing more.

At least the swiftboaters had *some* claim to being *somewhat* factual -- they were there, no way to prove what happened for sure, etc. -- this is just plain absurd.
 
Mccain needs to stop bitching and start talking...all he says is, My friend, complaining about how mean the democrates are, and change.. Would love to see him give a speech were he actually says what he intends to do and not lie in the same speech.
 
[quote name='sgs89']I mean, even if Obama had in mind Palin's comments about lipstick on a pitbull, I still don't see how this comment could in any way be heard to mean that Palin is a pig. It might be a riff on the imagery she used, but nothing more.[/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with Palin... it's a saying.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lipstick on a pig

A good analog to this would be had McCain said "pot calling the kettle black" in regard to DNC hypocrisy and Obama played the race card.
 
[quote name='Koggit']It has nothing to do with Palin... it's a saying.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lipstick on a pig

A good analog to this would be had McCain said "pot calling the kettle black" in regard to DNC hypocrisy and Obama played the race card.[/QUOTE]

I know it has nothing to do with Palin personally, but it can be seen as a riff on her "lipstick on a pitbull" comment. That's why the controversy is so bogus.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']aren't pigs supposed to be intelligent though?[/QUOTE]

I don't think she's dumb, I just think she's a pig. :nottalking:
 
lipstickpig.jpg


Do we really want THAT as (vice)president? :nottalking:
 
Well judging by his audience's reaction it seems they knew what Obama meant. It's similar to when Obama was in the middle of a sentence bashing Hillary, then stopped and used his middle finger to scratch his cheek. His audience's reaction tells it all.
 
The woman referred to herself as a bitch with lipstick.

Is anyone that gullible to believe she would be offended even if it was aimed at her?
 
This is smart for McCain.

The longer they paint Palin as a victim, seeing as how the media has such a fucking crush on her, the longer they can keep their momentum going, generate sympathy, and avoid talking about the actual issues that matter in this country.

If we talk about lipstick between now and November, it's McCain's victory.

I think a succinct "McCain's old and fucking stupid" should suffice as a response from Obama.
 
Obama should apologize for using an expression. He should also apologize for McCain calling his wife a cunt because McCain was probably using an expression there, too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
The longer they paint Palin as a victim, seeing as how the media has such a fucking crush on her, the longer they can keep their momentum going, generate sympathy, and avoid talking about the actual issues that matter in this country.[/QUOTE]

Interesting take on the media's treatment of Palin. If you listen to the right (including the McCain campaign itself), Palin is the victim of a left-wing media smear campaign. And here you are suggesting the exact opposite -- that the media is fawning all over Palin.

Both interpretations can't be right.

Which one is it, boys?
 
Between this exchange from CNN where John Roberts shows video of Palin expressing support for the bridge, then gladhands Alex Castellanos to lie about the issue, ending the segment with a flippant sort of "we'll leave it up to you to decide if she lied or not" demeanor, coupled with O'Reilly's interview of Obama where he tells Obama he passed a lousy bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BEF4qdtwDs

Well, I think the answer is obvious if you aren't a blithering idiot. Imagine anyone on CNN telling a Republican to their face that they passed a stupid bill. They'd be out the door due to feigned outrage before you could say "Dan Rather."

Palin has not faced a SINGLE question since she was announced. She has delivered ONE speech, the same speech she gave at the RNC, dozens of times, not deviating from the script.

The fact that the McCain campaign is unabashedly up front about how they're not letting anyone interview her (at the same time acting apalled that Oprah allegedly won't have her on, which is untrue, of course) - put it together. Do the math.

We have media people talking about Weather Underground and telling candidates their bill stinks on one hand, and absolute stunning silence and campaign managers talking on another.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I say.
 
[quote name='Koggit']The fact that "liberal media" is generally accepted proves we have very, very conservative media.[/QUOTE]

Tell that to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.

Or the New York Times.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Tell that to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.

Or the New York Times.[/quote]

Naming the New York Times as part of the "liberal media" just points out how much of a flip flop that newspaper is.
IIRC most of your Pro Iraq War articles came from the New York Times back in 2003. A chick by the name of *****JUDITH MILLER***** comes to mind.

Hmmm.....made the case for the Iraq War yet part of the "liberal media" you say?

I'm sorry but everytime I see somone claim the New York Times as part of the "liberal media" it gets my blood boiling. Honestly this just goes to show you how good the Republicans are at revisionist history.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Tell that to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.

Or the New York Times.[/QUOTE]

The media isn't impartial, but labelling it one way or another isn't correct. The media is neither conservative nor liberal.

This election stinks more and more like 2000 as it goes on. Also if we really had a liberal media George Bush wouldn't be our president, and all those lies conservatives made about what Gore said wouldn't have been allowed to stand.
 
[quote name='Frogurt.man']Naming the New York Times as part of the "liberal media" just points out how much of a flip flop that newspaper is.
IIRC most of your Pro Iraq War articles came from the New York Times back in 2003. A chick by the name of *****JUDITH MILLER***** comes to mind.

Hmmm.....made the case for the Iraq War yet part of the "liberal media" you say?

I'm sorry but everytime I see somone claim the New York Times as part of the "liberal media" it gets my blood boiling. Honestly this just goes to show you how good the Republicans are at revisionist history.[/QUOTE]

Is being pro-war conservative? Not if you are Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.

Is it liberal? I wouldn't say that.

The point is, one's position on the war in 2003 was not clearly divided along political lines. Most "liberals" were "for" the war. (Robert Byrd and Barack Obama notwithstanding)

Here is what the NY Times said about the issue of its bias:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b63

As a reader of the NY Times I am surprised that someone would honestly argue that it doesn't, in general, have a liberal slant. There are exceptions, obviously, but for the most part, it clearly does.

And it was wise on your part not to say anything about MSNBC and Olbermann. There is no argument there.
 
[quote name='sgs89']And it was wise on your part not to say anything about MSNBC and Olbermann. There is no argument there.[/quote]

That Scarborough - what a hippie!

And Pat Buchanan, omg is he Communist or something?
 
[quote name='camoor']That Scarborough - what a hippie!

And Pat Buchanan, omg is he Communist or something?[/QUOTE]

They can't have all marxists! They need a foil now and again, man.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Is being pro-war conservative? Not if you are Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul.

Is it liberal? I wouldn't say that.

The point is, one's position on the war in 2003 was not clearly divided along political lines. Most "liberals" were "for" the war. (Robert Byrd and Barack Obama notwithstanding)

Here is what the NY Times said about the issue of its bias:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9d01e7d8173df936a15754c0a9629c8b63

As a reader of the NY Times I am surprised that someone would honestly argue that it doesn't, in general, have a liberal slant. There are exceptions, obviously, but for the most part, it clearly does.

And it was wise on your part not to say anything about MSNBC and Olbermann. There is no argument there.[/quote]

Don't fool yourself into believing that there were a lot of people who bought into the war. Democratic senators and congressman voted for the war in Iraq out of pure fear.
Fear of the attack ads they would face come election time if they had a record of being against it. They feared the Republican spin machine they would be up against.

Don't fall for this bogus term. Don't fall for this "liberal media" horse crap. This is just something the Administration, Republicans use to drum sympathy and support.

Yes the NYT does have a lot of editorials with a left slant. But that does not mean it is part of this "liberal media". To me that whole term has been made up as a scape goat.
It doesn't exist. The last guy in charge made up the same thing. He called it the "right wing conspiracy".
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']The media isn't impartial, but labelling it one way or another isn't correct. The media is neither conservative nor liberal.

This election stinks more and more like 2000 as it goes on. Also if we really had a liberal media George Bush wouldn't be our president, and all those lies conservatives made about what Gore said wouldn't have been allowed to stand.[/quote]

:applause::applause::applause:
 
[quote name='Frogurt.man']
Don't fall for this bogus term. Don't fall for this "liberal media" horse crap. This is just something the Administration, Republicans use to drum sympathy and support.
[/QUOTE]

That's a good point, look at Sean Hannidy. On his radio show, he criticizes the "liberal media" however he has his own television show [Hannidy & Colmes] that comes on around 8 or 9pm, everday Monday through Friday. He's a straight conservative republican. Also, I don't know how they did it, but the GOP has a complete monopoly over talk radio.
 
I blame Democrats and Obama. Seriously for years now Republicans have gotten away with saying whatever they want knowing Democrats either dont hit back or dont hit back hard enough. Worse Fox News now does this same kind of shit. They know they can get away with talking about things like Jamie Lynn Spears and how underage teenage mothers are a huge problem then turn around and feign outrage over Sarah Palins daughter.

Democrats need to stand up and be angry and be loud and stand on the facts. Yes they are going to loose some elections over it, but I think in the long run they will decimate Republicans. When Obama was attacked over being a closet Muslim he should have stood up and been outraged. He should have said I am not a Muslim I am a Christian. I am outraged, not by the fact that my Christianity is being attacked though, but that you use being a Muslim as an attack which is disgusting. Whenever this whole lipstick on a pig thing was brought up he should have rolled his eyes and said I didnt mean it that way and its a joke taht you are even covering this. And when O Reilly was being a dick and said I know 1,000s of people and none are like that Obama should have replied, no you dont, because you are that guy and pointed out his own hypocrisy on many issues from his sex scandal to the before mentioned Palin/Spears baby thing.

The problem with both politics and our nation is that there are too many morons out there who are rarely outraged at anything and when they are its the wrong damn thing. The problem is that too many of us that know about it dont voice our opinion. We should be happy to tell others the facts and happy to tell others they are morons and point out why.

I really dont think our politics or are nation are going to change till its on the verge of collapse and we tear it down because of stuff like this.
 
The Republicans are the masters of the misdirection. Right now they are the equal to the guy that yells out "look over there" while picking your pocket. I love how this non-issue is an issue. Who cares if he was talking about her. She has said worse about Barack Obama during her speech. I just wish the media would end the school boy crush on Palin and grill her on the issues. Like Barack said yesterday the only people that will lose is us.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I blame Democrats and Obama. Seriously for years now Republicans have gotten away with saying whatever they want knowing Democrats either dont hit back or dont hit back hard enough. Worse Fox News now does this same kind of shit. They know they can get away with talking about things like Jamie Lynn Spears and how underage teenage mothers are a huge problem then turn around and feign outrage over Sarah Palins daughter.

Democrats need to stand up and be angry and be loud and stand on the facts. Yes they are going to loose some elections over it, but I think in the long run they will decimate Republicans. When Obama was attacked over being a closet Muslim he should have stood up and been outraged. He should have said I am not a Muslim I am a Christian. I am outraged, not by the fact that my Christianity is being attacked though, but that you use being a Muslim as an attack which is disgusting. Whenever this whole lipstick on a pig thing was brought up he should have rolled his eyes and said I didnt mean it that way and its a joke taht you are even covering this. And when O Reilly was being a dick and said I know 1,000s of people and none are like that Obama should have replied, no you dont, because you are that guy and pointed out his own hypocrisy on many issues from his sex scandal to the before mentioned Palin/Spears baby thing.

The problem with both politics and our nation is that there are too many morons out there who are rarely outraged at anything and when they are its the wrong damn thing. The problem is that too many of us that know about it dont voice our opinion. We should be happy to tell others the facts and happy to tell others they are morons and point out why.

I really dont think our politics or are nation are going to change till its on the verge of collapse and we tear it down because of stuff like this.[/quote]

Democrats angry!!! Democrats smash!!! /hulkvoice

They need some gamma radiation and a backbone transplant.

Totally agree, it's about time they call this crap out in the open... make people realize that mudslinging holds no weight after the voting process is made, and either one fell for the BS or not.

"you can put lipstick on BS... but..."
 
[quote name='sgs89']The point is, one's position on the war in 2003 was not clearly divided along political lines. Most "liberals" were "for" the war. (Robert Byrd and Barack Obama notwithstanding)[/QUOTE]
I think that's proof positive that most "liberals" were against the war. The only Democratic candidate yelling for reason at the time is now the undisputed leader of the party. You don't rise like he has without speaking to the base's problems with the former leadership.
 
[quote name='speedracer']I think that's proof positive that most "liberals" were against the war. The only Democratic candidate yelling for reason at the time is now the undisputed leader of the party. You don't rise like he has without speaking to the base's problems with the former leadership.[/QUOTE]

But that argument ignores the obvious - namely, that EVERYONE is now against the war (except for the neo-con, hardcore maniacs).

I mean, most conservatives are against the war now. At the time, most people -- yes, even most "liberals" --- supported it.
 
[quote name='sgs89']But that argument ignores the obvious - namely, that EVERYONE is now against the war (except for the neo-con, hardcore maniacs).

I mean, most conservatives are against the war now. At the time, most people -- yes, even most "liberals" --- supported it.[/quote]

That's right. With everybody against the war now, why are we still there?
 
[quote name='sgs89']But that argument ignores the obvious - namely, that EVERYONE is now against the war (except for the neo-con, hardcore maniacs).

I mean, most conservatives are against the war now. At the time, most people -- yes, even most "liberals" --- supported it.[/QUOTE]

Thats because most people are morons. I remember waking up on September 11th and after the intial feeling bad for those that died or lost someone laughing to myself and thinking well this should be fun and interesting. Next thing you know people were pushing for not just war but not even the right god damn wars.
 
[quote name='sgs89']They can't have all marxists! They need a foil now and again, man.[/quote]

No.

A foil is someone like Holmes or the freaks that O'Reilly lets out of the closet when he wants to play. "Lipstick on a pig? Spider caught a fly, bring out the gimp (and slap a liberal byline on her)"

When you call a show "Morning Joe" and give former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough the anchor position and loudest mic, he is no longer a foil.

MSNBC is somewhat conservative in the morning and increasingly liberal in the afternoon. But what of it? Fox news is hard-core balls-to-the-wall radical right all day long 24/7 no ifs, ands, or buts. Fair and balanced - more like fairly unbalanced. Plus Fox News is the most watched cable news. So how long are we going to keep up this mythos of ubiquitous liberal media if Faux News is the station polluting the most minds in America?
 
[quote name='camoor']Plus Fox News is the most watched cable news. So how long are we going to keep up this mythos of ubiquitous liberal media if Faux News is the station polluting the most minds in America?[/QUOTE]

Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.

Now, they might not seem liberal to you -- hell, you might be left of Chairman Mao for all I know -- but they are certainly more liberal than the average American.

They've done studies where they've compared the political views of those working in the main network newsrooms to those of the American public. Yep, the newsies are more "liberal" on all the issues, from abortion to gun rights to taxes.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.

Now, they might not seem liberal to you -- hell, you might be left of Chairman Mao for all I know -- but they are certainly more liberal than the average American.

They've done studies where they've compared the political views of those working in the main network newsrooms to those of the American public. Yep, the newsies are more "liberal" on all the issues, from abortion to gun rights to taxes.[/quote]

Of course most news professionals are liberal - after all most white-collar professionals in general are liberal. It doesn't necessarily interfere with the way they do their jobs.
 
[quote name='sgs89']Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.

Now, they might not seem liberal to you -- hell, you might be left of Chairman Mao for all I know -- but they are certainly more liberal than the average American.

They've done studies where they've compared the political views of those working in the main network newsrooms to those of the American public. Yep, the newsies are more "liberal" on all the issues, from abortion to gun rights to taxes.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. I think that the media is more liberal then the VOTING public yes. The problem is that young people, most more people....hell most Americans just dont vote or pay attention to politics. The people that do are by and large political junkies and old people.....who would mostly be conservative and thus watch fox news.

I think by and large most Americans are pretty centrist. They are liberal on some views, conservative on some....and feel one party or the other is going to far on different issues. For instance look at Welfare, I bet most Americans would be fairly liberal feeling there is a place for it in our system and more of a place then Republicans think. However I bet most would feel far too many people are eligible for it that shouldnt be. Similar with immigration, abortion and most other major policies.

I think if anything we are a nation that would probably lean to the left but we vote to the right. This is why we see polls time and time again showing Democrats having a fair lead, but then loosing. Because most Americans are centrist leaning to the left....most voters sadly are not.
 
[quote name='Koggit']...

what?[/QUOTE]

I took his comment to be facetious.

But the video wouldn't work for me, so I'm not sure what the point was. (I assume it was the one where someone in the crowd calls Hillary a bitch.)
 
[quote name='sgs89']Ah, there's the point. The most conservative (at least, Republican, because many of its positions are not truly "conservative"), by far, of the news media outlets, Fox News, is the most watched. What does this mean? The media, on average, is far more liberal than the general American populace. Hence, the "liberal media" tag is born.[/quote]

Are you sure that's what it means? The journalists themselves may very well be more liberal than the general public, but I don't think that's really the reason why fox news is the most watched any more than its the reason why Rush Limbaugh is more popular than the programs on NPR.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Are you sure that's what it means? The journalists themselves may very well be more liberal than the general public, but I don't think that's really the reason why fox news is the most watched any more than its the reason why Rush Limbaugh is more popular than the programs on NPR.[/QUOTE]

Well, what is the reason then?

Why didn't liberal talk radio take off? Conservative talk radio sure as hell did.

I assume you are suggesting that any appeal to the lowest common denominator would be more popular, but if that's true, then the market would bring forth similarly popular liberal lowbrow programs. (Jerry Springer show, anyone?)
 
[quote name='sgs89']Well, what is the reason then?

Why didn't liberal talk radio take off? Conservative talk radio sure as hell did.

I assume you are suggesting that any appeal to the lowest common denominator would be more popular, but if that's true, then the market would bring forth similarly popular liberal lowbrow programs. (Jerry Springer show, anyone?)[/quote]

Because conservative talk radio (Aka Rush Limbaugh) made it a business. Liberal talk radio was more about guy or girl with a megaphone on a wooden box instead of trying to support themselves financially.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']Because conservative talk radio (Aka Rush Limbaugh) made it a business. Liberal talk radio was more about guy or girl with a megaphone on a wooden box instead of trying to support themselves financially.[/QUOTE]

Doesnt hurt that their willing to be loud mouthed arogrant assholes which is what people seem to like out of talk radio. Being willing to lie about issues doesnt hurt either. The liberals that are assholes in general are more snide and snarky which works great for blogging but not so well over the radio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top