Forum posts made by principessa

Topic World around you in two words
Posted 01 Nov 2012 14:08

computer nightmare

Topic Describe yourself in one word
Posted 31 Oct 2012 15:15

busy

Topic Let the voting begin! Let's see how a lushworld poll compares to the real world...
Posted 31 Oct 2012 08:46

Here is one scenario of what might happen.

My Mitt Fantasy
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: October 23, 2012

While I was watching Mitt Romney make up fantasy positions in the foreign policy debate, I had a fantasy of my own.

And given the electoral isthmus the two men are wrestling on, it doesn’t seem like such a wild one. There is growing buzz that the dead heat could slide into a deadlock.

If Romney does suspend voter disbelief enough to tie President Obama, with each getting 269 Electoral College votes, the Republican-controlled House would determine the president — and give it to Mitt. And the (presumably) Democratic-controlled Senate would determine the vice president — and give it to Joe Biden.

So the first election decided by Congress in more than a century would produce a Republican president handcuffed to a Democratic vice president.

I think we can count on good ol’ Joe to devote himself to tormenting President Mittens. When Romney begins his “I, Willard ...” at the inauguration, Joe can howl like a banshee, “That’s a bunch of malarkey!”

When Biden sits behind Romney at his first State of the Union address, in that familiar tiered TV shot, the vice president can guffaw and roll his eyes and slap his knee and put his head in his hands and wave a sign behind Mitt’s slick head that reads, “Bunch of stuff.” I think we can count on Joe to ignore an enraged Tagg shaking his fist from the gallery.

A historic tie, which would spur demonstrations that would make the health care battle look like the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, seems a logical conclusion of the bitter partisan paralysis here and the bottom-feeding campaign, where hope has been chased out by lies on one side and character exaggeration on the other.

And why is the race so perilously close, given the dizzying fall of W. and the dizzying rise of Obama, a mere four years ago?

It is partly because of Obama’s endless odyssey of self-discovery, where he rattles around in his own head, trying to figure out who he is and why he’s stuck on a Denver debate stage, forced to justify himself in this clownish format against this shape-shifting chucklehead.

At the first debate, the president gave off such a feeling of ennui, he could have used a fainting couch. It suddenly made many voters who thought it only fair that Obama get another term, given the mountain of trouble W. had left behind, wonder if that second chance would be embraced with energy, imagination and zest.

And the race is vise-tight because Mitt’s a marvel. Never in modern memory has a presidential candidate so brazenly contorted himself, switching positions to suit the moment and pushing claims, like about Obama’s imaginary “apology tour,” that have been debunked.

But as Bill Clinton warned the Obama team last year, attacking Romney as a flip-flopper, as the president did Monday night in Boca Raton, can help Mitt with centrist voters who like the idea that he’s actually a sheep in Wolfowitz clothing.

Forgoing his Klingon rhetoric, Mitt played cling-on to Obama’s Spock, suddenly clutching onto the president’s positions on China (which he said had made “progress” on trade), Iran, the Afghanistan deadline, drones and ousting Hosni Mubarak. Romney was running so far to the left of Obama that he never even mentioned the tangled White House response to the Benghazi consulate slaughter, which Republicans on the Hill have been working tirelessly to tee up for him.

In the surest sign that Mitt had donned a more soothing costume, he even made a flattering reference to the United Nations, the bête noire of his hawkish neocon foreign policy advisers.

But it was no doubt the neocons who coached Romney to sheath the bayonet to neutralize Obama charges of warmongering. In The Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol urged Mitt to be “pre-presidential.” (Sort of like pre-emptive war.) He advised Romney to speak at the debate “in a bipartisan way” and appeal “to the broad American tradition of international leadership, and to the actions of Harry Truman as well as those of Ronald Reagan.” He advised praising “our diplomats” and “finding something to praise in the actions of President Obama.”

Very sneaky.

Obama blew the first debate because he can’t stand the phoniness of jousts, and he seemed flummoxed by the mind-boggling phoniness of Romney. For the first time, we see President Cool unable to keep his feelings completely cloaked. In Boca, his dark eyes were glaring daggers at Romney, who was sporting his smarmy smile and mine-is-bigger-than-yours flag pin.

If Romney gets to the Situation Room, will we see Cipher Mitt, the vessel of the neocons? Or will we see Moderate Mitt, chastising the hawks — who are eager to pick up where they left off bombing, in Iran and Syria — with a variation on the line he used about Al Qaeda at the debate: “We can’t kill our way out of this mess”?

It’s impossible to know. Mitt may have made so many compromises to get the prize that he doesn’t have a true self anymore. And that’s the scariest thought of all.

Topic Let the voting begin! Let's see how a lushworld poll compares to the real world...
Posted 30 Oct 2012 18:10

I am voting for MITT! I STRONGLY DESPISE Obama and EVERYTHING he stands for. I am fed up with his disrespect for America. It is time for that lying Communist BASTARD to GO!!!


http://upload.lushstories.com/796-398225_164754950322859_468844770_n.jpg

You can disagree with his policies and express that in a civil manner, but the only disrespect I see is yours. It is disgraceful. He is your President. The one disrespecting America is you. Why such hate?

This is called "The Think Tank". You are in the wrong place.

Topic Can Romney/Ryan get elected?
Posted 30 Oct 2012 16:30



This is true. As far as Obama blaming Dubya, it isn't just a charade. Bush's policies were grossly irresponsible and he stood back and did nothing while the banking industry and housing market went crazy. Interest only loans and many other foolish practices were allowed that cost our economy trillions. It's hardly surprising it's taken four years to reverse the damage.

My prediction is that when push comes to shove, Americans will remember this and Obama wins in a landslide.

From your mouth to God's ears, and this might prove the GOP does not have a monopoly on God.

Topic What are you doing if you're on the East coast with the storm approaching?
Posted 29 Oct 2012 18:22

It is impacting as far north and inland as southern Ontario. There are a number of areas without power as the strong winds have taken lines down. A deluge of rain is expected. All we can do is find our emergency supplies and hope it is not as bad as they expect.

Topic Republicans and the "R" word
Posted 29 Oct 2012 15:01

Bravo, Melissa. You are very brave.

Just one thing. His supporters are shameful and disgraceful - as well as shameless.

Topic Favorite show.
Posted 29 Oct 2012 14:24

Mad Men, The Good Wife, Wallander, Silk, Downton Abbey. Sgt. Lewis and, in election years in the U.S., SNL

Topic Alphabet Movies...
Posted 29 Oct 2012 10:42

Sorry, double post so I will do the next one.

Vertigo

Topic Alphabet Movies...
Posted 29 Oct 2012 10:42

Under the Tuscan Sun

Topic Let the voting begin! Let's see how a lushworld poll compares to the real world...
Posted 29 Oct 2012 08:18

President Obama and the Democratic ticket everywhere!

Topic Republicans and the "R" word
Posted 28 Oct 2012 09:49

I find it amusing that the Republicans, tea partiers, and others of their ilk prattle on about wanting government out of their lives (except for whatever benefits and tax cuts they can take advantage of, of course). Yet, when it comes to the most personal of decisions for women, whether or not to bear a child, they do not hesitate to want government intervention. The wealthy country club types who are the Romneys' friends will have choices nonetheless because they have money. No daughter of theirs would be subject to some 1950s back alley coat hanger procedure if she were pregnant and did not want to be - or, God forbid, raped.

So, ask yourself how you would feel if it were your wife, or sister, or daughter who was pregnant as a result of a rape and what you would want for her.

What is it that these men (and it is mostly men) do not understand? Is this just another way of undermining women? Is their ideal still the 19th century one that women be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen? Are they so threatened by women's self-determination and progress towards equality?

Let me be clear. No one will ever force any woman to have an abortion who does not want one. However, no politician, no Catholic, no other man or woman has the right to make that decision for me or other women who have different values or to take away their right to choose. Planned Parenthood matters. Funding for birth control information matters. Access to abortion matters. If health plans in the US can fund Viagra for men, there should be no argument about funding birth control for women.

Topic Sexual ABC's
Posted 26 Oct 2012 14:29

cunnilingus

Topic Sexual ABC's
Posted 26 Oct 2012 13:50

zippers - being undone

Topic Sexual ABC's
Posted 26 Oct 2012 13:50

zippers - being undone

oops - thought "y" had been done

yield (to another)

Topic Staying single because relationships are "too complicated"...
Posted 24 Oct 2012 15:40

LAD - There is no question why you are single. You are a misogynist. A number of other thoughts come to mind, but as they come from an intelligent, confident, independent woman, I know you would discount the source. Perhaps you need to find some group that keeps women in their place to feel more comfortable - I know - the Taliban. You would be a perfect member.

Topic Can Romney/Ryan get elected?
Posted 23 Oct 2012 09:53

From The New Yorker

MITT THE SHAPE-SHIFTER FALLS ON OBAMA’S BAYONET
Posted by John Cassidy


Let’s start with the blindingly obvious: President Obama won last night’s debate in Boca Raton, and won it easily. According to a CBS instant poll of uncommitted voters, his margin of victory was thirty points—fifty-three per cent to twenty-three per cent—a bigger margin even than the one Mitt Romney enjoyed in Denver a few weeks ago. On the question of who would better handle terrorism and national security, the split in Obama’s favor was almost as large: sixty-four per cent to thirty-six per cent.

These figures are hardly surprising. From Obama’s very first answer, when he said to his opponent, “Your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map,” to near the end, when he said, “Governor Romney, you keep trying to airbrush history,” he was the more aggressive debater, the more polished, the more persuasive, and the more punitive. Before the first debate, his aides proclaimed him above the use of “zingers.” On this occasion, he came with his pockets bulging with them, none more zingy than his crack about the military having fewer bayonets and horses than it did in 1916—a riposte that clearly had been prepared for use if Romney repeated his line about the U.S. Navy having fewer warships now than it had almost a hundred years ago, which indeed he did. Not content with mocking his opponent once, Obama proceeded to do it twice more: “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” he said. “We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”

If that was the sound bite of the evening, there were lots more high moments for the President, some of them supplied, mystifyingly enough, by his opponent, who was engaged in what amounted to a shape-shifting exercise too far. Having observed how well his “Mitt the Moderate” act went down in Denver, the G.O.P. candidate had evidently decided to reprise it in the arena of foreign policy. On issue after issue—Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, the pursuit of Al Quada—he aligned himself with the Administration’s policies, backing away from his previous criticisms, and from any suggestion that he might govern as a bellicose warmonger.

Asked about the United States’ role in the world, he said: “Our purpose is to make sure the world is more—is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet. We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they’re going to have a bright and prosperous future, not be at war.” In response to a question about how he would go beyond the Administration’s efforts to topple the Assad regime, he said: “I don’t want to have our military involved in Syria.” Nor in Afghanistan. Where previously he had questioned Obama’s commitment to bring all the troops home by 2014, he now declared: “We’re going to be finished by 2014, and when I’m President, we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014.” Around the country, conservatives were watching with increasing alarm. “How many times has Romney said the president is right tonight,” Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, tweeted about fifteen minutes before the end. “i thought he shld try to be a little above the fray, but this is a bit much.” Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, agreed, tweeting: “Romney’s closing statement better save this performance, or he’s a big loser tonight.”

From the very beginning, you knew something fishy was going on. In his first question of the evening, Bob Schieffer, the courtly CBS veteran, brought up the recent deaths in Libya of four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. “Questions remain,” Schieffer said. “What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened? Governor Romney, you said this was an example of an American policy in the Middle East that is unravelling before our very eyes.” Uh-oh, you thought. Here comes the answer Romney should have given last week: a stinging denunciation of the Administration’s failure to provide adequate security for Stevens and his colleagues, followed by a ringing indictment of its efforts to portray a terrorist attack as a spontaneous riot.

But no. Rather than unsheathing his bayonet and ramming it into the President’s gullet, Romney said, “Mr. President, it’s good to be with you again,” and went off on a rambling discourse about the threats facing the world, taking in the Arab Spring, the carnage in Syria, the Iranian nuclear threat, the Muslim Brotherhood’s victory in Egypt, and the takeover of “the northern part of Mali”—yes, Mali—“by Al Qaeda-type individuals.” Just when you thought he was circling back to Benghazi, Romney said, “and we’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the President has done. I congratulate him on—on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in Al Qaeda. But we can’t kill our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the—the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism.”

It was hard to know which was more shocking: Romney paying tribute to Obama, or a Republican politician saying: “We can’t kill our way out this mess.” As I was struggling to decide, Romney went on: “We don’t want another Iraq, we don’t want another Afghanistan. That’s not the right course for us. The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the—the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these—these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world. And how do we do that? A group of Arab scholars came together, organized by the U.N., to look at how we can help the—the world reject these—these terrorists.”

The hirsute and somewhat elderly gent keeling over in the G.O.P. green room was John Bolton, the Bush Administration hard-liner who, in 2005 and 2006, spent a year and a half camped out on the East Side trying to insult as many U.N. officials (and foreigners in general) as he could. In reaction to questions about why Romney had enlisted head cases like Bolton to his foreign-policy team, his flacks frequently pointed to the presence of less fearsome figures, such as Robert Zoellick, the former head of the World Bank. But who knew that Romney had also enlisted Katrina vanden Heuvel and Kofi Annan as advisers? Not I, anyway.

About the only time Romney got his Irish up and took the fight to Obama was when he repeated his charge that the President, at the beginning of his term, had embarked on an “apology tour” of the Middle East. Obama promptly dismissed this as “the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign.” Romney, rather than saying, yet again, that he agreed with the President, came back at him, accusing him of saying on Arabic television that “America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”

Finally, something for Republicans to cheer about. But that was Romney’s one Reagan moment. Afterwards, however, there was some suggestion from the pundits that his entire performance had been a fiendishly clever attempt to ape what the Gipper did in 1980, during a debate with Jimmy Carter: come on all lovey-dovey and peace-loving, and thereby put to rest fears that, should he be elected, he would promptly loose one off on the Soviets. “Mitt Romney did something pretty important tonight,” David Gergen said on CNN. “He came across as a responsible-sounding Commander-in-Chief.” Over on Fox, Charles Krauthammer developed this argument further: “He stayed away from the pitfalls. He did not allow himself to to be pictured as a warmonger. I think this could help him win the election.”

I don’t buy it. If Romney does win, it will be despite this performance rather than because of it. In refusing to engage in detail about what happened in Libya, he gave up his one chance of really embarrassing the President on a specific foreign-policy issue. In constantly siding with Obama on issues of military policy and counter-terrorism—did I say he loves drone attacks?—he undermined his argument that the President’s term of office has been a failure and he needs running out of town. And in constantly reversing his previous positions, he raised anew the question that has plagued him all along: Does he actually believe in anything?

After the debate had finished, I went to a bookshelf and pulled out my copy of “The Real Romney,” a meticulously reported biography of the G.O.P. candidate that I’ve cited before because it’s probably still the best thing written on him. In their prologue, the authors, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, two reporters at the Boston Globe, recall the Mittster’s 2008 campaign, when, with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani occupying what passes for the moderate center in the G.O.P., Romney decided to recreate himself as a right-winger, shamelessly courting the social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives—“any conservatives he could find.”

The trouble was that it looked too much like opportunism—or worse, insincerity, given his long record of syncing his political views with the party’s moderate wing. “Everything could always be tweaked, reshaped, fixed, addressed,” said one former aide, describing Romney’s outlook. “It was foreign to him on policy issues that core principles mattered—that somebody would go back and say, ‘Well, three years ago you said this.’ ” The perception of expedience, along with lingering bigotry against Mormonism, helped bury his hopes.
In 2012, Romney has largely overcome any anti-Mormon feeling in the party, and the country. But, as last night’s debate demonstrated, the perception of expedience will never go away because it is perfectly accurate. Indeed, it is getting worse. Where once he repudiated things he said three years ago, he now repudiates things he said three months ago, or even three weeks ago. Fourteen days from now, we will find out whether his outrageously cynical approach to campaigning pays off. Given the way the polls are going, such a possibility can’t be wholly discounted. But last night, I suspect, he went too far. The voters may be gullible. But are they that gullible?



Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/10/mitt-the-shape-shifter-falls-on-obamas-bayonet.html#ixzz2A8rRAJ8m

Topic Photo of something you'll never be caught wearing
Posted 22 Oct 2012 14:55

http://upload.lushstories.com/531-sexy_tattoo_women.jpg


It is just not me.

Topic Approaching 150K members, $150 Amazon Voucher up for grabs!
Posted 22 Oct 2012 07:14

November 8th

Topic Can Romney/Ryan get elected?
Posted 19 Oct 2012 15:52

Sometimes no words are needed.



http://upload.lushstories.com/793-romney_Cover_465.jpg

Topic Scoring and comments. Fair?
Posted 17 Oct 2012 15:08

I do not believe that comments should be anonymous. If you feel that you do not want to make negative comments publicly, you have the option to give constructive criticism in a PM. As for scoring, allowing it to be anonymous opens the door for those who bear ill will, jealousy or other negative feelings that have nothing to do with your work to lower your score. Although it would be nice to ignore this and take it from whence it comes - perhaps from a spurned lover or a rival for someone's affection (who knows?) - it is really a petty thing to do. There are a number of us who have been subject to this kind of sneaky ill will.

I have recently chosen to connect the ability to score the stories that I write with Alphamagus to commenting (an option in settings), so that you must leave tracks. If you have something to say, you may and then score. If you want to comment privately, I welcome that, too.

Topic Book recommendations
Posted 17 Oct 2012 11:11

Anything by Alan Furst


http://upload.lushstories.com/737-alan furst.jpg

Topic Brad No. 5
Posted 16 Oct 2012 12:38

Chanel #5.

It is what my grandmother swiped on her wrists. But she passed away in 1985 and was 73 at the time! Chanel #5, it's so...1940s

You are so right, WMM. It is a grandmother scent. Maybe that is why I don't like it and why they are trying to update it with Brad Pitt.

Topic Brad No. 5
Posted 16 Oct 2012 09:05



Is it just me or does Brad Pitt always look like he needs a shower? Hot guy but sometimes I question his hygiene!LOL


Perhaps they are trying a new strategy in that the celebs in scent ads are usually selling products for their own gender. This is aspirational in a different way. Instead of helping us be like them - Charlize Theron, Keira Knightley, etc. - this tells us the perfume might help us get someone like Brad.

I have never understood his appeal. No, thank you. Of course it helps that Chanel No. 5 is awful on me. I like Allure by Chanel much better.

Topic Can Romney/Ryan get elected?
Posted 15 Oct 2012 16:47

Thank you, Oberon, for summarizing it all so eloquently. Interestingly, you have observed deafness, while I thought it was willful blindness - the refusal to acknowledge the obvious, proven truth. But I guess there are some people out there still who think the world is flat and are afraid of sailing off the edge.

I will be so happy when the election over and, please God, this thread is finished.

Topic Keeping Your Mouth Shut or Speaking what is on your mind.
Posted 15 Oct 2012 16:42

I believe in saying what I think with a number of caveats. It is important sometimes to ask yourself what good will come of this if you do speak up. Sometimes, none, so it is best to say nothing.

I think part of maturing is not having always to show how smart you are any more, or how much you know, so you can let things pass without comment. You have nothing to prove so, again, it is not necessary to say anything, especially if it may cause embarrassment to someone else (unless something important depends on them being right).

I have also come to realize that you learn more by being quiet, as people feel compelled to fill silence. Sometimes it is a good strategy.

Finally, in matters of principle, right and wrong, it is always necessary to speak up.

Topic The most important ingredient
Posted 15 Oct 2012 11:31

Intellectual curiosity for me

add the ability to make me laugh and that is the magic formula.

Topic Forum Game: Twin Word Link
Posted 15 Oct 2012 09:35

Bar Association

Topic What comes to your mind when you hear the name of the country above you?
Posted 14 Oct 2012 18:35

Prague and "The Unbearable Lightness of Being".

Brazil

Topic Can Romney/Ryan get elected?
Posted 14 Oct 2012 16:04



Thanks for that New Yorker post, principessa.
Very interesting, and very entertaining.

You're welcome.

Just don't tell 1ball. Adam Gopnik is a Canadian. Just part of the socialist Trojan horse of Canadians in the US subverting his Ayn Rand individualist wet dream.