your country is burning and your concerned about the fashion of a Milf...

its nice how it seems like yo udidn't even bother reading someone's post and stuck to only those points that somehow allow you to retort back

Your point is about double-standards for women. This mini-scandal isn't even remotely about that.

Yes, women spend more for clothes. That does NOT mean that they spend $150K in six weeks, which is why I brought up Hillary and Michelle for a fair comparison.

your country is burning and your concerned about the fashion of a Milf...
Oh go back in your cave. You have demonstrated over recent months that you know very little about America or its politics.

my reply was to the sexist video you posted, not the entirety of the thread. you missed that

you fail to read what you don't wish to read and proceed to argue what you can based upon a set agenda.

Actually I didn't. I've said twice now that the pressure for women to look good does not justify $150K. I'm not denying that there is sexism. But Fox News was using that as an excuse, which is ludicrous.



Pot meet kettle.

and i guess for the 3rd time, you refused to actually read the post. you quoted one paragraph of mine,

She had to dress the family up, too, and she's got a damn big family seeing as how she doesn't believe in Planned Parenthood.

Really, 2.5 thousand a day if it means 1.25 thousand per outfit (if you are getting two a day and not counting haircuts, makeup, etc.). That's pretty normal if an outfit requires pants/skirt, blouse/tip, jacket, shoes, some accessories like earrings or a necklace. Hell, most of my crappy jeans cost more than two hundred dollars. I could easily see pants for national tv being 3-400, a blouse being 2-300 and a button-down jacket being 3-400. Then, earrings around 200 and shoes around 200. Now its getting cold and you have to have nice looking winter jackets, too. You people really think that your debut on the national stage is the time to start counting pennies? Media impressions are everything, and I still do not find 150k to be all too shocking.

Kind of like YOU did: "my reply was to the sexist video you posted, not the entirety of the thread."

You're not serious right? Like really? Honestly? You're really going to go down this path? You're more McCainish and Republican than i thought. You posted a video, i replied to it. I replied to the video. I didn't even reply to any comments you were making. I posted some cmoments in light of a video. I posted both, my support for her comments and my continuing disdain on how a 150K shopping spree is still beyond me.

I still don't quite understand why you felt some need to bring up a question asking me how i felt if my wife did something like that considering i answered that part twice in that same post. I don't know about you but if someone says "i think that car is red,' i dont quickly reply back with a 'but don't you think that car is red!?!?'

I wasn't replying to the entirety of your post. I was responding to the general point that women are required to spend more on clothes because of sexism. My question about your wife was rhetorical, since I'd assume she didn't spend that much whether you had stated so or not.


This bickering is kind of pointless. I was actually agreeing with you generally, so the one arguing just to argue here is you.

a) If you agreed with me in the first place, if you've already stated that women need to spend more, if you already mentioned 150K is excessive, and if i replied with my own personal opinion on the video bearing nothing on your comments .... do you see where i'm going with this? You started and questioned me the first time. i didn't start this debate. i'm sitting here wondering why someone who agrees with me is somehow asking me to explain myself when i've already done it. now you're saying the question is rhetoric yet you've gone on replying back to me repeatedly without even bringing that up once, even though on 2 occasions before this, i explained or refered you back. you continued to feel the need to reply back. i'm not here to win an argument. every reply, all i've stated is 'dude, answered your question. what are you trying to get to'. so i'm sorry but as the person being asked a question that is rhetoric or not (on a board, i dont quite have the liberty to guess when one is), i don't see how I"M THE ONE continuing on an argument.

MY point is that regardless of sexism, there is no justification for spending that much money on clothes when your campaign is already short on funds and after you've tried to paint your opponent as an out-of-touch elitist.

Please let me know which part of that you disagree with.

I had no disagreements to begin with. i've already stated that i responded to a video. i never even took any of your comments and tried to insinuate you felt otherwise. the only one who took someone's response and then questioned them further on it here is you.

like you said, if this is pointless, its pointless. i'm not here to continue this on. we both know where we stand on this and we happen to agree. lets move on.

i'm sitting here wondering why someone who agrees with me is somehow asking me to explain myself when i've already done it.

Again, my question was rhetorical, not asking you to explain yourself. Sorry if it came out the wrong way. We are in agreement.

Maybe, you know, you SHOULD read the post before commenting, because then you won't sound so stupid since we've already discussed these points.

Here's why this is objectionable:

1. She claims to be just another hockey mom but shows every signs of being an elitist that she accuses others of being. It's the hypocricy, stupid.

2. She didn't pay for this out of her own money, like Obama and Biden do with their own wardrobe, no matter how expensive. Republicans who gave their hard earned money to see McCain elected can't be happy that the GOP decided it was more important to give that money to Palin's wardrobe buyer instead of helping get McCain and other GOP candidates elected. (In fact, it has now been shown that McCain's highest paid consultant is Palin's make-up person).