enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
$150,000 in clothes v. $150 Million to buy advertising
by ckmsoa

Lets put the number in some perspective. Imagine all the good things that an be done with $150,000,000 other than put a man into the white house.


Re: $150,000 in clothes v. $150 Million to buy advertising
by ShaneTrain

ckmsoa:

Lets put the number in some perspective. Imagine all the good things that an be done with $150,000,000 other than put a man into the white house.


That's funny, I thought that the $150Million Obama recieved was made up of CONTRIBUTIONS FROM HIS CAMPAIGN SUPPORTERS.

TO SUPPORT HIS CAMPAIGN!!!! THAT'S WHAT THE MONEY WAS FOR!!!!!!

Clearly, ignorance is making a comeback.


Re: $150,000 in clothes v. $150 Million to buy advertising
by ckmsoa

So what point are you trying to make. I'm sure the $150k was from SP's campaign supporters. If people want to get their panties in a wad over clothing but ignore the fact that $150,000,000 is being spent on two weeks of advertising, feel free. But what you have to say is not relevant to the point I was making. Talk about ignorance. And feel free to flame me, because you're probably a douche bag.

Re: $150,000 in clothes v. $150 Million to buy advertising
by juliusjimmie
Okay, let's go ahead and say "who cares" about the amount and what was purchased. If we allow that, then will Palin stop trying to claim to be the homey small town regular gal hockey mom? And we all thought Edwards' $400 haircut was bad. Also, care to share what McCain has spent on his campaign? How much of it was from public financing? And I'll bet you can't tell us how much of Obama's campaign was from public financing either.
Re: $150,000 in clothes v. $150 Million to buy advertising
by ShaneTrain

ckmsoa:

So what point are you trying to make. I'm sure the $150k was from SP's campaign supporters. If people want to get their panties in a wad over clothing but ignore the fact that $150,000,000 is being spent on two weeks of advertising, feel free. But what you have to say is not relevant to the point I was making. Talk about ignorance. And feel free to flame me, because you're probably a douche bag.

I'm an absolutely elite, left wing, east coast dousche bag, because I recognize the fact that Sarah Failin' is fake, and Barack Obama is using money for the right thing?

The $150,000 was funded by the Republican Party, and since they're the ones who caused the National Debt, it couldn't hurt for them to "piss it into the ocean". It was funded by the party (not donors) to help her maintain her Joe Six Pack image with clothes and a hotel room on Madison Avenue, NYC. HMMMMMMMMMMM

Madison Avenue isn't really Joe Six Pack territory, by the way, yet Sarah seems comfortable there.


Re: $150,000 in clothes v. $150 Million to buy advertising
by Jess Wonderin

ckimsoa:

Funny, you have no problem with the "Party" supplying a wardrobe equal to 4 YEARS Plus of "Joe the Plumber's" INCOME and don't question State Supplied Clothes as "Socialism"????

and that $150,000 was small DONATIONS to finance a return of AMERICA to the middle class . . .

Re: $150,000 in clothes v. $150 Million to buy advertising
by Jess Wonderin
OPPS . . . that was $150 MILLION . . . it was "only" $150,000 for Barbies Props . . . so many zeros to keep track of.
View as RSS news feed in XML