OMG - dissing the clothing. How superficial.
Posted By: N/M on 2009-01-20
In Reply to: I liked the dress but - Nan
*
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
OMG - dissing the dress. How superficial is THAT?
*
Thank you, Superficial Sally!
So you diagnosed McCain with congestive heart failure.
Funny. I was thinking Obama looked like he had manorexia. Or AIDS.
I am not so superficial that I give a rat's
butt about what anybody wears!! But if one is going to portray oneself as a God-fearing, patriot who is so free and easy about slapping labels like pro-American or anti-American, I think one should at least pretend to be a regular Joe Six-Pack. Hopefully, there there are enough intelligent people out there that are as outraged as I am about these comments of hers. I AM a Real American and I am from a very small town!!
The big O is a superficial cheeseball! If this truly was a ltr from
a loving father to his daughter thanking for blah, blah, blah then why make it public? I would think this would a special moment shared between father and daughters.
Everything Obama does and says is unbelievably and carefully scripted and calculated!
it is not superficial to be interested in what they wore
and it was a question asked by the OP, so are we not allowed to answer in fear of being called superficial if we don't like it, as i didn't?
I love fashion. People make a living off of that too you know, I wouldn't call it superficial.
unless we were talking about the MONEY it cost... then you have a valid point
OMG -- talking about the dress period is superficial!
Who gives a crap what Michelle Obama was wearing!
At least her clothing will be going to charity
*
A Repub in Independent's clothing. You know
OINK
Palin clothing really only $50k vs. $150k
nm
Hey there! I like it, but what about clothing, housing, medicines......sm
baby products (I nursed all three completely so THAT was cheap, but not an option for everyone), I don't think the MREs were meant to nourish little children, so I would worry about that. You still need utilities of some kind, because we all can't go out and cut down trees, so there is a lot to think about. I think if they INVESTED in hiring more social workers who were monitored to really do their jobs and fish out all the bogus welfare claims, get those people jobs or job training and paying back into the system, that would be wiser, because let's face it, there are some families that spend their welfare money on wasteful or indulgent stuff, but with this economic depression the Welfare is going to go more and more to unemployed families who were "let go," and I do worry about the nutrition and health of the little ones.
DITTO that......a wolf in sheep's clothing
@@
The wolf will come out of his sheep's clothing if he gets elected...
and all his little sheeple followers will finally see him for what he is.
Donating Palin's expensive clothing to charity.
Mother who cannot afford food says to hungry child, "Would you like gabardine or charmeuse for breakfast, sweetheart?" Hopefully, Palin's leather clothing will be donated to hungry vegetarians!
I was also pleasantly surprised at the nice clothing, like SPalin! nm
nm
Harriet Miers: Antonin Scalia in sheep's clothing
Harriet Miers: Antonin Scalia in sheep's clothing
October 11, 2005
By nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, President Bush has put forth a total unknown. A blank slate. A cipher. Not even the president knows where she stands on the issues because he never asked her.
That's what the White House wants you to think. Don't you believe it.
Of course, if you listen to most conservatives, Harriet Miers is as dangerous as a card-carrying member of the ACLU. I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized, huffed the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol. Her qualifications for the Supreme Court are nonexistent, puffed former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan.
Nonsense.
Make no mistake about it. This decision is too important. Replacing William Rehnquist with John Roberts was a wash. It's this appointment, to fill the shoes of swing-vote Sandra Day O'Connor, that will determine the future direction of the Supreme Court. Karl Rove never would have let George Bush nominate Miers if he didn't know she agreed with Bush on every issue.
It's not hard to figure out how Bush decided on Miers. If elected president, he promised in 2000, he would appoint to the Supreme Court justices like extreme conservatives Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. John Roberts didn't fit the bill, so Bush knew he had to deliver this time around. But he also knew any one of the names on the conservatives' wish list -- Michael Luttig, Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown -- would stir up a firestorm in the Senate, which Bush wanted to avoid.
So Bush came up with Plan B, as brilliant as it is diabolical: Nominate someone who is every bit as conservative as Luttig, Jones or Brown, privately, but who is a complete mystery, publicly. And that's Harriet Ellan Miers. The perfect stealth candidate. Antonin Scalia in sheep's clothing.
In case you still harbor any doubts about her right-wing credentials, here's final proof. After four days of complaints from the far right, Karl Rove got on the phone to leading conservatives, starting with James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family. Rove convinced him to support Miers, Dobson confirmed, by giving him confidential information on her religious beliefs. Miers, like Bush, is an evangelical Christian.
Notice how the White House plays the religion card both ways. It was wrong for Democrats to raise the fact John Roberts is a Catholic, they argued, just one month ago.
Notice also what their doing so tells us about Harriet Miers. She's a soul mate of James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. She's anti-choice, anti-stem cell research, anti-separation of church and state, pro-school prayer and pro-teaching intelligent design in public-school science classes. She's way out of the mainstream.
So what are Democrats waiting for? They know enough about Miers already to merit all-out opposition -- including the filibuster, if necessary. And they'd better act fast.
If Harriet Miers is confirmed, we'll be yearning for the good old days of moderate William Rehnquist.
Bill Press is host of the nationally syndicated Bill Press Show. His e-mail address is: bill@billpress.com.
Special Offer: Get 2 Weeks of Daily sunday delivery Free when you buy 13 weeks.
ŠThe Shreveport Times
October 11, 2005
Did anyone count Obama's blinks or are democrats the only superficial ones counting blinks? nm
x
|
