Scoring last night's Republican Presidential primary debate

kickycan wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I've had my hair cut at beauty shops, hundreds of times, sometimes even getting a manicure and massage while I'm at it.

What a homo.

Careful, the hyper-sensitive will be pooring out of the woodwork...

0 Replies

Quote:

I never said I didn't find the feminization of men to be funny, but the nonsense won't end until you face up to the fact that absurd spending is joke-worthy, even if a handful of hyper-sensitive folks whine about it's other implications.

Oh, absurd spending IS joke-worthy. But they weren't making fun of that at all, and you know it.

I find Feminization of men to not be very funny. And I don't think that I'm hyper-sensitive. I just don't find women to be weak, at all, so there isn't anything funny about it. It was a weak comment, an easy one, but not a funny one or substantive one.

There's no need for us to go on and on about this, as you finally admitted that you find the feminization of men to be funny - which was my original point.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
$40 is higher than any price for a Men's hair cut I've seen. $400 is simply absurd.

It may be absurd in your world, but it's not absurd in rich guy/metrosexual guy circles. I know more than a few guys who think nothing of spending in excess of $200 for their haircuts - and they're not even management-level in our company. A couple of them are temps who pay a lot more for fades and shades and gawd knows what else.

You're an old-skool white guy, O'Bill, and sometimes it's just more obvious than other times.

You've also made it clear in a number of places that you despise Edwards, so your perspective on what's wrong (if there is anything wrong) with a $400 haircut could be somewhat skewed by that.

~~~~~

Last night, when I read your comment about it, all I could think was "old-skool white guy". You'd have fit in nicely on that stage.

So, in this group a beautician makes, what, a quarter million dollars a year? I have trouble believing that's too typical of too many places. Who is the "old school white guy"? Is that an SNL character or something?

0 Replies

Oh, yeah

Quote:

IT WASN'T HIS MONEY. Are you really now going to defend the idea that the man who aspires to the Presidency should be able to spend absurd amounts of other people's (ours) money, because he is a millionaire personally? Really? Examine the idiocy in that contention, then retract it. IT WASN'T HIS MONEY.

Um, those people GAVE their money to him. Usually when you give something to someone, it becomes theirs. So, yes, it was his money.

If you/they don't like the way he spent it, don't give him any more money. Simple as that. Criticisms of the way he spent his money are immaterial; they are based upon nothing but your own personal mores, not any actual or factual wrongdoing on his part.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

I never said I didn't find the feminization of men to be funny, but the nonsense won't end until you face up to the fact that absurd spending is joke-worthy, even if a handful of hyper-sensitive folks whine about it's other implications.

Oh, absurd spending IS joke-worthy. But they weren't making fun of that at all, and you know it.

Dude, you sound like an idiot. "A Congress that spends money like John Edwards at a beauty shop" is a shot at congress AND Edwards for excessive spending, with a sprinkle of what you're pretending it's ALL about implied. Get a grip.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There's no need for us to go on and on about this, as you finally admitted that you find the feminization of men to be funny - which was my original point.

I didn't finally admit anything; there was no denial, and you've made no point. Answer the $4,000 $40,000 question if you have the integrity to face the truth. At what price would it be permissible to comment on Edward's excessive spending of other people's money on a haircut?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, yeah

Quote:
IT WASN'T HIS MONEY. Are you really now going to defend the idea that the man who aspires to the Presidency should be able to spend absurd amounts of other people's (ours) money, because he is a millionaire personally? Really? Examine the idiocy in that contention, then retract it. IT WASN'T HIS MONEY.

Um, those people GAVE their money to him. Usually when you give something to someone, it becomes theirs. So, yes, it was his money.

If you/they don't like the way he spent it, don't give him any more money. Simple as that. Criticisms of the way he spent his money are immaterial; they are based upon nothing but your own personal mores, not any actual or factual wrongdoing on his part.

Cycloptichorn

You've stopped thinking and are just arguing for the sake of argument at this point. Re-read that dribble later and see if you want to stand by it. (How a presidential candidate spends other people's money is VERY much material.)

0 Replies

I agree with Bill. Edwards is a rich, money-wasting homo.

0 Replies

Saying Edwards spending $400 on a hair cut does not have quite the same punch as "Edwards spending $400 in a beauty salon.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Saying Edwards spending $400 on a hair cut does not have quite the same punch as "Edwards spending $400 in a beauty salon.

Perhaps not to someone who lives in a cave. Does anyone think there's a barber out there charging $400 for a hair cut?

0 Replies

Quote:

At what price would it be permissible to comment on Edward's excessive spending of other people's money on a haircut?

Well, first, it wasn't other people's money. It was money that they had given to him, to campaign with, and I don't think that many of them put restrictions on what he could or couldn't spend the money on. So stop saying this, please. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with how he spent the money, but it's simply false to say that it wasn't his to spend as he sees fit.

It isn't a question of what is permissible and what isn't permissible; whether something is funny or not doesn't make it permissible to talk about or not. I have never claimed that anyone should have been condemned for speaking the line, or not allowed to say it. Just that it isn't funny.

You haven't addressed the fact that the Right-wing has been feminizing him in order to ridicule him for some time. This adds a certain personal and special element to the joke, as I'm sure you understand, but just don't want to admit.

You can make fun of Edwards' hair at whatever time you wish, for whatever reasons you wish. Good ol' America and all. You don't even need my permission, though it's kind of you to ask whether I would find it permissible or not.

It's the implication that made the joke. Otherwise, it wouldn't have been funny to anyone. Relevant, sure. But not funny, certainly not belly-laugh inducing as the audience showed. But I don't expect you to admit this.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, yeah

Quote:
IT WASN'T HIS MONEY. Are you really now going to defend the idea that the man who aspires to the Presidency should be able to spend absurd amounts of other people's (ours) money, because he is a millionaire personally? Really? Examine the idiocy in that contention, then retract it. IT WASN'T HIS MONEY.

Um, those people GAVE their money to him. Usually when you give something to someone, it becomes theirs. So, yes, it was his money.

If you/they don't like the way he spent it, don't give him any more money. Simple as that. Criticisms of the way he spent his money are immaterial; they are based upon nothing but your own personal mores, not any actual or factual wrongdoing on his part.

Cycloptichorn
You've stopped thinking and are just arguing for the sake of argument at this point. Re-read that dribble later and see if you want to stand by it. (How a presidential candidate spends other people's money is VERY much material.)

Only if he somehow breaks a moral or ethical rule by doing so. Spending money on a haircut is neither. You disagree with it, and that's your choice, but to say that it wasn't his choice how to spend it (within the rules, which he followed)? Ridiculous.

I'd like for you to flesh out this argument further, and show how the money which is given to candidates isn't theirs to spend as they see fit on whatever they think will help them win. Please be specific.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

revel wrote:
Saying Edwards spending $400 on a hair cut does not have quite the same punch as "Edwards spending $400 in a beauty salon.
Perhaps not to someone who lives in a cave.

http://www.duncans.tv/images/geico-caveman.jpg

Dude, Not Cool!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, yeah

Quote:
IT WASN'T HIS MONEY. Are you really now going to defend the idea that the man who aspires to the Presidency should be able to spend absurd amounts of other people's (ours) money, because he is a millionaire personally? Really? Examine the idiocy in that contention, then retract it. IT WASN'T HIS MONEY.

Um, those people GAVE their money to him. Usually when you give something to someone, it becomes theirs. So, yes, it was his money.

If you/they don't like the way he spent it, don't give him any more money. Simple as that. Criticisms of the way he spent his money are immaterial; they are based upon nothing but your own personal mores, not any actual or factual wrongdoing on his part.

Cycloptichorn
You've stopped thinking and are just arguing for the sake of argument at this point. Re-read that dribble later and see if you want to stand by it. (How a presidential candidate spends other people's money is VERY much material.)

Only if he somehow breaks a moral or ethical rule by doing so. Spending money on a haircut is neither. You disagree with it, and that's your choice, but to say that it wasn't his choice how to spend it (within the rules, which he followed)? Ridiculous.

I'd like for you to flesh out this argument further, and show how the money which is given to candidates isn't theirs to spend as they see fit on whatever they think will help them win. Please be specific.

Cycloptichorn

You are deliberately missing the point. If he spent a billion dollars on luxury travel; it may not violate any rules or laws, but would certainly be worthy of consideration of the man aspiring to run a 13 trillion dollar economy. No one said he broke a rule, or law; I said he spent other people's money foolishly, which he did. This is an opinion shared by the majority of his would-be constituents, hence; IT WAS STUPID. Why are you trying so hard to pretend otherwise?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

So, in this group a beautician makes, what, a quarter million dollars a year? I have trouble believing that's too typical of too many places. Who is the "old school white guy"? Is that an SNL character or something?

well, let's start with "beautician". That word hasn't been used in 40 years.

I can tell you that there are colour technicians who make in excess of $200,000 annually in Toronto. Some make a LOT more. My stylist (in a down market shop) makes over $100,000.

The guy I was considering for my birthday do in NYC, charges $400(it'll go to $500 in September) for a cut, more for the colour etc. I decided against it, but he's busy enough that you need to book a month or so in advance.

There are plenty of stylists/technicians in Toronto who charge at that level. For men as well as women.

old-skool? dunno about SNL - haven't watched it in about 20 years. It's a common term here for traditional things/traditional approaches. Wiki on old school/old skool

$400 seems like a lot to you, and it's more than I'd want to spend, but it's not an unusual amount in the world of the well-groomed.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Oh, yeah

Quote:
IT WASN'T HIS MONEY. Are you really now going to defend the idea that the man who aspires to the Presidency should be able to spend absurd amounts of other people's (ours) money, because he is a millionaire personally? Really? Examine the idiocy in that contention, then retract it. IT WASN'T HIS MONEY.

Um, those people GAVE their money to him. Usually when you give something to someone, it becomes theirs. So, yes, it was his money.

If you/they don't like the way he spent it, don't give him any more money. Simple as that. Criticisms of the way he spent his money are immaterial; they are based upon nothing but your own personal mores, not any actual or factual wrongdoing on his part.

Cycloptichorn
You've stopped thinking and are just arguing for the sake of argument at this point. Re-read that dribble later and see if you want to stand by it. (How a presidential candidate spends other people's money is VERY much material.)

Only if he somehow breaks a moral or ethical rule by doing so. Spending money on a haircut is neither. You disagree with it, and that's your choice, but to say that it wasn't his choice how to spend it (within the rules, which he followed)? Ridiculous.

I'd like for you to flesh out this argument further, and show how the money which is given to candidates isn't theirs to spend as they see fit on whatever they think will help them win. Please be specific.

Cycloptichorn
You are deliberately missing the point. If he spent a billion dollars on luxury travel; it may not violate any rules or laws, but would certainly be worthy of consideration of the man aspiring to run a 13 trillion dollar economy. No one said he broke a rule, or law; I said he spent other people's money foolishly, which he did. This is an opinion shared by the majority of his would-be constituents, hence; IT WAS STUPID. Why are you trying so hard to pretend otherwise?

You're simply incorrect.

He spent his campagin money, which was given to him to spend on his campaign, in the manner he saw fit. It is inaccurate to label it as 'other people's money.' Once they give it to him, it is no longer their money in any way, shape or fashion.

I don't think it was foolish of him to spend a trifling of his campaign cash on a haircut. I think that your opinion on what is the best way for people to spend money, and what is an appropriate or inappropriate amount to spend on something, is your opinion and nothing more.

And this:

Quote:

This is an opinion shared by the majority of his would-be constituents, hence; IT WAS STUPID.

... seems to me to be an allegation which is unsupported by either fact or logic. Edwards has taken no flack from his base over this. There has been no majority polled which said he made a stupid choice. His numbers have not dropped in any national poll over this. The only people who have been up in arms about it, and talking about how it was stupid, and making fun of him for doing something feminine, are Republicans - and yourself, who supposedly isn't a Republican, but votes for them and sure acts like one sometimes.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

$400 seems like a lot to you, and it's more than I'd want to spend, but it's not an unusual amount in the world of the well-groomed.

Or, of course, the gay world.

0 Replies

Okay, I'll leave now.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

$40 is higher than any price for a Men's hair cut I've seen.

Dude. I've had a $40 haircut - and I was A) in Holland, where things are still a bunch cheaper than in the US, let alone NYC for example, and B) a lowly worker bee in a subsidy-surviving NGO.

And it was just a straight cut - if I'd had it coloured or whatever, it'd surely been double.

Sure, it was a relatively expensive place (my normal hairdresser's place charged like $25), you got a glass of wine while waiting and stuff, but it still wasnt any kind of whoopy elite exclusive place where the rich and famous crowded, nor was it by any famous hairdresser.

Scoring last night's Republican Presidential primary debate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know