No, because you didn't put lipstick on that white meat. The McCain/Palin has dibs on the use of the word lipstick when associated with any animal. I'm assuming alive or dead doesn't matter.

 

 

 

I really don't see any connection with the dog to the main subject of the ad. Are dogs known for lying?? Looks to me like she is comparing her to a dog for what reason I'm not sure. The comment "this dog doesn't hunt" may have some signifigance, but not being familiar with Kay Hagan, I don't know. Just my opinion.

 

Well you've never lived next door to a yippie dog then have you? J/K

 

I think the ad is clearly comparing and calling Hagan a dog. Now I think we all know slang for a female dog. :thumb:

 

Personally all this stuff keeps us off the real issues but I found it humorous.

You seemed to be pinning some blame on the Democrats ... your post seemed to be going in that direction.

Are the two events related? It sure seemed like you were saying so.

Of course I was pinning SOME blame on the democrats. I actual said there was enough blame for both sides. Are the two events related? I can't say that for sure but an approval rating in the teens would tell me most of the country is saying that.

McCain and Palin need to get over it. It's a phrase that's been used by many politicians (including McCain and Cheney). Why is it so bad now that a Democrat uses it?

The whole lipstick comment was much ado about nothing...but....

 

I do find it quite comical how diehard liberals would eat George Bush alive and call him an idiot over every gaffe he said, yet Obama is on a breakneck pace to rival Bush in the "Did he really just say that?" category. Obama's worst enemy is a technical malfunction with his tele-prompter, as it seems everytime he has ever ad libbed or went off the cuff he ends up having to apologize for it the next day.

Of course I was pinning SOME blame on the democrats. I actual said there was enough blame for both sides. Are the two events related? I can't say that for sure but an approval rating in the teens would tell me most of the country is saying that.

Fine, but tell me ... what has the Democrat-controlled Congress done to contribute to rising gas prices? If they share some of the blame, what is it they have done?

The whole lipstick comment was much ado about nothing...but....

 

I do find it quite comical how diehard liberals would eat George Bush alive and call him an idiot over every gaffe he said, yet Obama is on a breakneck pace to rival Bush in the "Did he really just say that?" category. Obama's worst enemy is a technical malfunction with his tele-prompter, as it seems everytime he has ever ad libbed or went off the cuff he ends up having to apologize for it the next day.

 

That might be the case, but this comment was not a gaffe IMO. He wasn't even talking about Palin, from what I've read.

Fine, but tell me ... what has the Democrat-controlled Congress done to contribute to rising gas prices? If they share some of the blame, what is it they have done?

They have repeatly refused to allow a vote on domestic drilling. While not contributing to the rise of oil prices they have done everything in their power to combat it. I personally do not believe congress or the president did anything to make the price increase. However they sure as hell can take steps to help decrease.

 

I know you have stated that you don't blame Bush for the oil prices but you would be in the minority of democrats that believe that, at least on this site. My point was really to point out if you blame Bush why not Washington as a whole. There is plenty to go around.

I personally do not believe congress or the president did anything to make the price increase. However they sure as hell can take steps to help decrease.

:thumb: Agreed.

They have repeatly refused to allow a vote on domestic drilling. While not contributing to the rise of oil prices they have done everything in their power to combat it. I personally do not believe congress or the president did anything to make the price increase. However they sure as hell can take steps to help decrease.

 

I know you have stated that you don't blame Bush for the oil prices but you would be in the minority of democrats that believe that, at least on this site. My point was really to point out if you blame Bush why not Washington as a whole. There is plenty to go around.

This is what gets me about the Republicans' indignation about the Democrats' reluctance to go for domestic drilling.

 

For six years, the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Not once do I recall a push then to increase domestic drilling, and this is from a party that liked to criticize Bill Clinton for being against drilling in the ANWR area in Alaska.

 

It's my understanding that drilling now won't have an immediate effect on prices. In fact, there are reports that some oil companies have rights to drill in some areas now, but are not doing so.

 

Now, all of a sudden, though, it's the Democrats' fault ... when the Republicans could have easily done this from 2000-06.

This is what gets me about the Republicans' indignation about the Democrats' reluctance to go for domestic drilling.

 

For six years, the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. Not once do I recall a push then to increase domestic drilling, and this is from a party that liked to criticize Bill Clinton for being against drilling in the ANWR area in Alaska.

 

It's my understanding that drilling now won't have an immediate effect on prices. In fact, there are reports that some oil companies have rights to drill in some areas now, but are not doing so.

 

Now, all of a sudden, though, it's the Democrats' fault ... when the Republicans could have easily done this from 2000-06.

 

Then you haven't been paying attention to the issue. Here is just one piece of legislation that was defeated in the last seven years. There were 5 Dems and 41 Repubs who voted for it. There were 45 Dems and 8 Repubs (including McCain) and 1 Independent who voted against it. This vote is one of the reasons I am not enamored with McCain. Also note that the number of Democrats outnumber the number of Republicans in this vote so the statement that Republicans had complete control of Congress in those 6 years is also false.

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00071

 

If you look you can find more.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the issue. Here is just one piece of legislation that was defeated in the last seven years. There were 5 Dems and 41 Repubs who voted for it. There were 46 Dems and 8 Repubs (including McCain) who voted against it. This vote is one of the reasons I am not enamored with McCain.

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00071

 

If you look you can find more.

I believe that the House did pass a bill to allow ANWR drilling but Republicans in the Senate could not clear the 60-vote threshold on the cloture vote. The White House has consistently favored opening more federal areas to drilling and Democrats have blocked the legislation consistently. The overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress have supported drilling but they have had almost no support from Congressional Democrats.

 

I agree with you on McCain, his continuing failure to support drilling in ANWR continues to be one of my biggest issues with him, although I believe he will soon reverse his position.

I believe that the House did pass a bill to allow ANWR drilling but Republicans in the Senate could not clear the 60-vote threshold on the cloture vote. The White House has consistently favored opening more federal areas to drilling and Democrats have blocked the legislation consistently. The overwhelming majority of Republicans in Congress have supported drilling but they have had almost no support from Congressional Democrats.

 

I agree with you on McCain, his continuing failure to support drilling in ANWR continues to be one of my biggest issues with him, although I believe he will soon reverse his position.

 

OH NO! You mean he might be a flip flopper?

Then you haven't been paying attention to the issue. Here is just one piece of legislation that was defeated in the last seven years. There were 5 Dems and 41 Repubs who voted for it. There were 45 Dems and 8 Repubs (including McCain) and 1 Independent who voted against it. This vote is one of the reasons I am not enamored with McCain. Also note that the number of Democrats outnumber the number of Republicans in this vote so the statement that Republicans had complete control of Congress in those 6 years is also false.

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00071

 

If you look you can find more.

I stand corrected.

 

If the Republicans had just held their ranks, it would have passed. So logic would tell you that doesn't make it all the fault of the Democrats..

OH NO! You mean he might be a flip flopper?

I believe that one of the main reasons that McCain picked Palin as his running mate is because of her energy expertise. Palin strongly believes in allowing drilling on 2,000 acres in ANWR. If McCain does not flip on this issue, it will undermine her status as the energy expert on the ticket.

I stand corrected.

 

If the Republicans had just held their ranks, it would have passed. So logic would tell you that doesn't make it all the fault of the Democrats..

You are still missing the point. Had the Republicans voted unanimously in favor of the drilling, they still were well short of the 60 votes necessary to get the bill to the floor for a vote. One party cannot push a bill through the Senate over the objections of the other members under current rules. (IMO, the Republicans should have scrapped that rule but McCain and the Gang of 14 eliminated that threat.)