The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Well, in my humble opinion, Sarah Palin is a pig.

Wearing lipstick.

There you go.

On the other hand, I'm not Obama.

On a more serious note, does anyone else find this article absolutely hilarious?

jimtyrrell wrote:'lipstickery'.

Ha! Nice one. I knew there was a clever name for it in there somewhere. I was thinking lipstick slinging, but lipstickery wins.

jimtyrrell wrote:It matters not at all to me which of these assclowns grabs the reins. And there's no third-party candidate that impresses me this time either.

I know there's some logic in accepting the fact that one of these guys is gonna run the country, and that there's value in picking the one I think will do the best job. But I can't reconcile that with the idea that, given the way they choose (need?) to campaign, the best either of these guys can hope to be is a successful politician. The process sickens me, and a vote for anyone is an endorsement of what I can only best describe as 'lipstickery'.

Gimme a week and I'll probably calm down.

You're where I'm at. Welcome aboard. Its been way more than a week since I have felt this way. So good luck with the calming down!

You know, I'll greatly enjoy this election, regardless of the outcome, because I will be highly amused watching either ticket lose.

And are we sure there's no decent third party this time?

I'm looking forward to seeing who will play Sarah Palin on SNL. She kind of looks like Tina Fey, but I don't think she's part of the cast anymore. But I believe she is still part of the writing staff. It would be SO fucking funny to get someone like Pamela Anderson on SNL just to do Palin skits. Do bits like Mc Cain is her sugar daddy. My gawd that would rock!

Jeez, dude, you have the worst sense of humor I've ever encountered.

My previous post, continued...

Other politicians have also used the phrase in recent years, including Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Rep. John Mica of Florida and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

Torie Clarke, a former McCain adviser, even wrote a book called, "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning In the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game.

Were they ALL insulting Palin, or just Obama?

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told CNN the campaign saw a "big difference" between (McCain's reference and Obama's reference): "McCain was referring to a policy proposal. Obama was referring to [Alaska] Gov. Sarah Palin".

If you read the whole quote, though, the context is perfectly clear:

"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington,'" he said. "That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."

So obviously, he was talking about policy. Even if you want to stretch it and say that it is about someONE and not someTHING, he mentioned three men, John McCain, George Bush, and Karl Rove. I'm actually surprised that he didn't mention her name. He must be extra sensitive about NOT using the lipstick analogy with respect to her.

By the way, who's the fish supposed to be? Just wondering.

Spud wrote:Former Gov. Jane Swift

Speaking of pigs...

Lord of Oats wrote:Jeez, dude, you have the worst sense of humor I've ever encountered.

Soooo.......I should keep my day job?

OK, how about they have a guy play Palin? Like Jim Carry played that buffed chick on In Living Color, Vera Demillo. Have him talk with a deep voice and bark like a pit bull every so often.

.....*crickets* No one?

Spud wrote:Were they ALL insulting Palin, or just Obama?

Just Obama.

San Francisco Tries To Keep Baseball Raiders at Bay; City Fights to
Keep Its Giants City Intent on Keeping Giants -- And Its Money
By Jay Mathews Washington Post Staff Writer. The Washington Post
(1974-Current file). Washington, D.C.: Nov 16, 1985. p. C1 (2 pages):
SAN FRANCISCO, Nov. 15--KNBR, the AM radio station carrying the Giants
baseball games, had raised $20,000 toward the construction of a new downtown
stadium. The board of supervisors, reluctant to commit to such a project, asked if
they couldn't use the money to renovate Candlestick Park.

"That," replied KNBR personality Ron Lyons, "Would be like putting lipstick
on a pig."

House Bill Links Licenses To Child-Support Payment; A Nod to
Democrats on Welfare Overhaul
By ROBERT PEAR. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Mar 24,
1995. p. A22 (1 page):
Representative Patricia Schroeder of Colorado called them "cosmetic
amendments" and said: "It's like putting lipstick on a pig. When you're through, you
still have a pig."

Lawmaker Claims to Have The Speaker's Job Sewn Up; G.O.P. Leaders
Give Support to Livingston as Jousting for Other Posts Intensifies Livingston
Claims Speaker's Job Is Sewn Up
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.:
Nov 9, 1998. p. A1 (2 pages)
Pg. A18: And on "This Week," Mr. Boehner said: "There was really no clear
agenda for the year, And when there's no agenda and there's no real direction,
what happens is you can't--you really can't have a message. You can put lipstick
on a pig all day long, but it's still a pig."

Gruardian Honors Mall by Curbing Number of Memorials
ELAINE SCIOLINO. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jul 16,
2001. p. A8 (1 page):
He began his career as the chief landscape architect for Rhode Island, where
his job was to beautify highways. "It was like putting lipstick on a pig," he
said.

Me thinks thou do protest too much.

Me thinks thou googles too much.

By the way, I'm just stirring the pot to keep this thread lively. I don't care if Obama was making a snide remark or not, I laughed. It's all just lipstickery.

Obama: That would be like putting LIPSTICK on a PIG...
Crowd: Going wild
Obama: You can wrap an OLD FISH in a piece of newspaper...
Crowd: Going wild

He was probably just using common, everyday rhetorical analogies. But in the context of THIS particular election, knowing what's gone before, I *personally* would have read between the lines.

melvin wrote:I *personally* would have read between the lines.

I guess it all depends where you're coming from, doesn't it?

Spud wrote:

melvin wrote:I *personally* would have read between the lines.

I guess it all depends where you're coming from, doesn't it?

Yes, I guess so.

Lord of Oats wrote:You know, I'll greatly enjoy this election, regardless of the outcome, because I will be highly amused watching either ticket lose.

And are we sure there's no decent third party this time?

I'm telling you, the Libertarian's 'less government' is looking pretty good to me. That would be REAL change IMO. Let the government back off for a while and then we can re-approach the items that need to be addressed socially from there.

God, American politics. This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen. Your candidate has said it, leadership on both sides has said it, your campaign advisor has written a book called 'lipstick on a pig' but when the black guy says it he's sexist.

Such knee-jerk retardation. Idiocracy will one day be looked upon like Nostradamus.

jimtyrrell wrote:After reading about this, and the sniping from each camp that followed, I've ended up right where I usually find myself: thinking that a trip to the polls is a waste of a morning. It matters not at all to me which of these assclowns grabs the reins. And there's no third-party candidate that impresses me this time either.

I know there's some logic in accepting the fact that one of these guys is gonna run the country, and that there's value in picking the one I think will do the best job. But I can't reconcile that with the idea that, given the way they choose (need?) to campaign, the best either of these guys can hope to be is a successful politician. The process sickens me, and a vote for anyone is an endorsement of what I can only best describe as 'lipstickery'.

Gimme a week and I'll probably calm down.

Hate the game, not the player.

If the process sickens you, then stop paying attention to the process. You're doing this to yourself. You can ignore all of the bullshit (and there has been very very little bullshit so far) surrounding this election, and make a choice based solely on the issues. You don't have to let your disgust with the electoral process make you blind to investigating the issues that each of these candidates saying are important.

Just because you can put lipstick on a pig doesn't mean that everything that has lipstick IS a pig. Wipe the lipstick off and see what's underneath. Don't like the petty stuff? Look past it. Each candidate has specific things that they are supporting. It's within your power to look at this election this way, if you really want to.

Erik and I held hands once on the schoolbus.

That wasn't Eric's hand.

melvin wrote:Sober and Ray: it's important to look at the world on a RELATIVE basis. There is no utopia. The American government may not have lived up to your expectations during Hurricane Katrina, but then again, hundreds of Europeans have died due to a mere heatwave.

This article, based on a Swedish study, provides some quick metrics on American wealth and standard of living compared to Europe. The American healthcare system is a mess, yes, but a larger government monopoly is not the answer. It never is. Watch and see what happens to the world's socialist healthcare systems as Western populations age over the next decade or two. Socialism feels good, but it does not work. The math is simply untenable.

..errrr no Melvin. I knew there was a reason why I don't read papers like "The Wall Street Journal". Those silly economic pseudo-scientists are fools. That is one of the most illogical things I have ever read

But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income.
WTF!?!?! I wonder if that is Swedish after-tax income he is quoting!

...and
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. WTF!?! When did not owning a car and air-conditioning become a signifier for poverty? While it doesn't really surprise me that not many Swedes own air-conditioning - I own a very well insulated house on the fringe of the Brisbane CBD. The "poor" people that rent it off me don't need an air-conditioner either. Or a car, because their taxes pay for an excellent public transport system.

There may be no Utopia, but I think you'll find that the people in much of Western Europe and Oceania are more than happy to forgo some GDP in the form of social services in order to enjoy a higher standard of living than the USA.

Meanwhile - capitalism and the Tragedy of the Commons has left us with climate change. Socialism may not work perfectly - but neither does capitalism. Not by a long shot.

You say:
Watch and see what happens to the world's socialist healthcare systems as Western populations age over the next decade or two.. How are non-publicly funded systems going to be any better?

Lord of Oats wrote:Well, in my humble opinion, Sarah Palin is a pig.

Wearing lipstick.

Has anyone ever tried putting lipstick on a pig?

I have had 2 pet pigs - Iggy and Gary. I tried to do a lot of things to them - but no chance in hell could you ever get lipstick on them. I mean - I didn't try that - not exactly - I did try to dress them up occasionally - nothing weird though - just for fun - but I'm pretty sure you could not get lipstick on them.

We did cut Gary's testicles off. And 4 fully grown men had to sit on him to do that. We probably could have put some lippy on him then I suppose, but we didn't think of it.

Damn...why didn't we think of it!?!?!?


Anyway - it anyone wants to get together a team of 4 fully grown men to sit on Sarah Palin, yeah...I'll be in it. I'll bring the lipstick. And the pig testicles.