Sarah Palin

But not just anybody's hairstyle - a celebrity's hairstyle. My bigger issue is why Sarah Palin still enjoys her celebrity. Since she does, regardless of reason, her hairstyle is subject to discussion.

Regarding her hairstyle, then, putting my feelings aside for a moment: there doesn't seem to be much appreciable change. If I were flipping through channels, I wouldn't flip back to Fox News and say, "There's something different about Sarah Palin."    

Bob S wrote: Ononotdon wrote: Bob S wrote: Wow, you think a woman who loves her family and country is "wretched". What did she ever say or do to deserve your bile? She holds no power, she is a commentator. You betray yourself as a Zombie, Pal. You can't tolerate dissent to your own jaded worldview. [IMG]smileys/smiley5.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Confused" /> The old "family and country" bit. You forgot "God." I'll give her credit for loving her family, but that's about it. She came too close for comfort to holding power, and whether you'd care to admit it, her status as a commentator grants her a modicum of power and influence (see: Ann Coulter.) Yes, this is a board about celebrity hair. What interests me is how certain people become celebrities. We wouldn't discuss them at all if we didn't recognize them as celebrities. Why Sarah Palin, who resigned from office in disgrace, continues to enjoy celebrity baffles me. Would you care to discuss the hair of former President Richard Nixon? First, I don't discuss the hair of any man, living or deceased. If you would like to, though, knock yourself out. Second, YES, Sarah loves God, as do I. Do you have a problem with that? Take it up at your local Atheist Society.Third, she did not resign "in disgrace". She resigned b/c an ethics act which she originally supported was abused by radicals and people like YOU with the bringing numerous frivolous lawsuits against her, without cost to them, and with hundreds of thousands of expense for the Palins, a middle class family. The law left her checkmated, esp. since this shortsighted ethics law forbade her from raising money in her own defense. Finally, are you American? In America, we are supposed to be able to exert our "modicum of influence" without the power of the Federal government and its IRS descending upon us. You would be very comfortable in a totalitarian state, which we seem to be rapidly lurching toward ourselves. Just one note of caution from friend to friend: Should you EVER disagree with your government about anything, keep it to yourself. [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Wink" />

Bob,

You used a lot of strong language, which I'll characterize as "just short of offensive," and made a number of assumptions about me. I'll attempt to disabuse you of just two:

I'm no Atheist. Anyone's genuine love of God or genuine practice of the religion he or she chooses is fine by me. As a matter of fact, I don't take kindly to the Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins, or, especially, would-be Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins' implications that faith in a Supreme Being is prima facie evidence of the believer's stupidity (never mind that these folks operate on faith daily. For example, faith that the alarm clock will sound, and that the car will start, never mind that the oil hasn't been changed for 20,000 miles.) Furthermore, I'd argue that these types live in a state of secular anarchy, and that many of them are libertines who just don't like being told that their lifestyle might be based upon a flimsy foundation. It's a free country, so they're free to base their lives upon a flimsy foundation, but I need something more solid. So while I'm no atheist, I do have problems when I suspect that one's professions of faith might be self-serving. I have no affiliation with an Atheist Society.

To the question of my nationality, I am an American. I hold the same belief you do: that one should be free to exert his influence, regardless of the size of its sphere, without government interference, unless that person advocates harm to others. This is a fundamental principle, one which no one, regardless of ideological sympathies, should have any problems with. To quote a man much wiser than either of us, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." I've defended Mrs. Palin's right to express herself on a Media Matters forum (I don't remember the issue.) I guarantee you I put my money where my mouth is, sir.

I will take your note of caution under advisement, friend.

PS: Relax - I was kidding about Nixon.




Edited by Ononotdon - June 26 2013 at 1:53pm

loveshorthair wrote: Do y'all realize that no one really reads the long posts - OK, I am speaking for myself, but I bet there are others

That's okay. I had the time, and besides, there might be someone who does.

Yes, I made a comment of a political nature (you characterize it as a "wisecrack") on a hair board. I'm not ashamed of that. I'm certain I'm not the only one who's posted off topic.

But okay, fair enough, Bob. However, you will recall:

"First, I don't discuss the hair of any man, living or deceased. If you would like to, though, knock yourself out. Second, YES, Sarah loves God, as do I. Do you have a problem with that? Take it up at your local Atheist Society.Third, she did not resign "in disgrace". She resigned b/c an ethics act which she originally supported was abused by radicals and people like YOU with the bringing numerous frivolous lawsuits against her, without cost to them, and with hundreds of thousands of expense for the Palins, a middle class family. The law left her checkmated, esp. since this shortsighted ethics law forbade her from raising money in her own defense. Finally, are you American? In America, we are supposed to be able to exert our "modicum of influence" without the power of the Federal government and its IRS descending upon us. You would be very comfortable in a totalitarian state, which we seem to be rapidly lurching toward ourselves. Just one note of caution from friend to friend: Should you EVER disagree with your government about anything, keep it to yourself."

You used some strong, pointed language in that post. I responded publicly, but the distinction between my post and yours is that I did not make any intimations vis-à-vis your character. You may or may not concede that point.

But once again, fair enough, Bob.





Edited by Ononotdon - June 28 2013 at 11:53pm

Speaking for myself, my first post was, admittedly, vitriolic. Still, I thought it might be fun to mix it up a bit. If that post was too far out of line with regards to this community's standards, then I SHOULD apologize. To all it may concern, I apologize.

I'll still mix it up a bit, but I'll try to do so without being a lout. No one likes a lout.