Now, before anyone goes and thinks this is sexist or racist or whatever other Leftist label you may want to use to shut down and otherwise legitimate discussion — keep it to yourself. That stuff doesn’t work on me and you’ll find I’ve taken to pushing back against such bully tactics.
Now that that’s out of the way, I saw this tonight on Drudge:
Obama Complains that Michelle Doesn’t Make Money As First Lady
There is a simple solution to Obama’s problem: TELL MICHELLE TO STAY THE HELL HOME WHERE SHE BELONGS!!!
The 1st Lady is NOT an elected position, nor is it an official position of our govt — and it shouldn’t be. No one told her to go running around spending the tax payers’ money. She was not hired or elected to do so. Nor is there any constitutional or legal requirement for her to do so. Therefore, if she or Obama have their butts hurt because they think she should get paid to go on what amounts to a celebrity tour 24/7, SHE SHOULD JUST STAY HOME!
Which leaves me to want to post this picture — again:
And this one — again:
The Rio Norte Line 
Only right-wingers could hear what Obama said as a “complaint.” And you’re right–you do come across as racist and sexist. But of course we know you don’t mean to, Joe. 😉
LOL, thanks, J — for being consistent. And because you are consistent (i.e. dense and hypocritical), I was using “liberal logic” when I wrote that. It was intended to illustrate the way “YOU GUYS” draw similar connections when you are attacking the people you hate (I’d list them, but that list has gotten so long it’s easier to just say the other 80-85% of society that are NOT Progressive/Liberals).
How convenient for you. Now anytime you lie or say something dumb, you’ll just say you were acting like the “other side.” I suspect you’ll get to use that a lot.
And — according to YOU — I will be telling the truth. 100% James McFly certify, that’s my cry 😀
And James, you come across as a complete idiot. But of course we know you don’t mean to, it’s just something you obviously can’t control.
Obama’s statements were just more of the same demagoguery we’ve been hearing for the last four years. Mooseschelle doesn’t have to worry about health care. And as first lady, she is given a monthly expense account as well as a butt load of assistants. She has no worries…at least none until November 6th.
“as first lady, she is given a monthly expense account as well as a butt load of assistants”
Yep, just like every other First Lady in modern history.
“no worries…at least none until November 6th”
You think she’ll need to hire new staff after her husband is re-elected? 😉
But unlike every other First Lady in history, the rest didn’t take advantage of the largesse provided by the American taxpayer to go on multiple lavish vacations during a recession. If Mooseschelle had to pay out of her own pocket for all her vacations, she wouldn’t have left the country.
Not to mention the large edition to her “staff” she has made over that of other 1st Ladies (just remember, they “redefined” what staff is, so J will soon be along to “prove” she has the smallest staff in history…;-) )
I do think the First Family should reduce vacation costs, though you’d have to prove to me that Michelle’s staff is larger than that of her predecessors–some conservative sites have used phony comparisons or simply lied. And I must have missed your complaint, though, about the fact that George W. Bush was the most expensive vacation president in US history: http://www.politicususa.com/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush.html
Mooseschelle doesn’t have many more assistants than other First Ladies. She has maybe two dozen. Laura Bush had eighteen and Hillary had around twenty. The problem lies in the fact that Mooseschelle takes these lavish vacations on the taxpayer dime while throwing it in our faces.
Black uses a conservative site for his links…so what. The link you provided is about as liberally biased as it gets. I don’t think you want to get into the expense of Obama’s fund raising tours on the taxpayer dime. He has been in campaign mode since his election in 2008. Figures are hard to come by as this “most transparent administration in history” hasn’t been very forthcoming with the finances involved and how much the campaign owes back to the taxpayer. And of course, it’s at a considerable discount from the actual cost.
“He has been in campaign mode since his election in 2008.”
For sure. That’s one of the many problems with modern politics. Everyone in it is in campaign mode all the time. And I also agree that the Obama administration has been far from transparent.
HEY! I have cited from across the political spectrum. I’ve even used the NY Times and HufPo in the past. When was the last time J EVER used a right of Marx source to support anything he was trying to sell us? 🙂
“When was the last time J EVER used a right of Marx source to support anything he was trying to sell us?”
Oh, gee, we’d have to go all the way back to … LAST NIGHT, on one of your own posts. Unless you now think Red Alert Politics is not “right of Marx.” Sad, Joe–just sad. https://therionorteline.com/2012/08/08/attack-our-olympic-athletes-more-lefties-living-their-values/
Mooseschelle??!??!!? So I suppose Romney’s twist is now fair game?
Can you imagine how conservatives would have come unglued if someone had referred to Laura Bush in similar terms?
Comes with the territory, James. Nancy Reagan was the “Dragon Lady”, the “Ice Queen”, etc. Hillary Clinton was “Her Thighness”, “Hillary Rotten Clinton”, etc. Both were accused of actually running the country (presidency) instead of their husbands.
True, in a sense. The difference seems to be that conservatives are more likely to criticize Democratic first ladies based on their looks, as opposed to their actions. Neither is right, but don’t you think the former seems tackier?
I believe it is applied equally. Barbara Buch was constantly a target of remarks concerning her looks and weight. People referred to her as H.W.’s grandmother, while one of my favorite Hillary nicknames was “Hitlery” based on her actions.
It is pretty much equally applied. All first ladies get criticized by the other side for one thing or another. I haven’t found any of them particularly attractive but I think all of them has served with class. So does one side criticize more than the other? I’d have to “just say no”. Pun intended. I actually think Nancy was criticized heavily about her clothes and jewelry. Mostly borrowed or donated to her. But they’re first ladies and that’s how they roll.
The vacation thing has been discussed over and over and it simply won’t change. Bush was the undisputed king. He took the most, cost the most, stayed away the most. I know, I know, these were WORKING vacations on his ranch. OK, the President is always working. But just the trips alone (costs of AF1), accommodations built on the ranch for his and her staffs, and all the other measures that has to be done to secure the president, he’s cost the most. We’ve discussed it many times and Obama is going to have to kick it up a bit to catch him.
Sorry, WM, but I don’t think you can make the case that “Bush stayed away the most” — not now that Obama has had the better part of 4 years.
That’ll depend on your definition of staying away. If it’s away from the WH, Bush has it on lock—by far. Unless Obama as taken about 100 days this year he’s not even close to Bush’s time.
“Last summer, CBS News reported on the number of days that Obama had spent on vacation and compared it to the vacation days of Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton. The issue of the cost to country was not brought up in this comparison, just the number of days.”
“According to the stats kept by CBS’ Mark Knoller, both Bush and Reagan spent more time away from Washington DC than Obama has. However, it should be noted that the Reagan and Bush vacations were typically spent on their ranches. The Obama family vacations include exotic and exclusive (read “expensive”) locations around the planet.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-confronted-by-local-reporter-about-non-stop-and-expensive-first-family-vacations/
“President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total “vacation” trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001, according to Knoller.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/president-obamas-vacation-days/
“There has been criticism of the president’s vacation at this time. But how does the number of vacation days the president has spent compare to his predecessors? CBS Radio’s Mark Knoller has kept track of presidential vacations for years and supplied the data.
So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.
Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off — 28 days.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20093801.html
And what – then – are we to make of the persistent reports from inside Obama’s own camp that, even when he IS at the WH, Obama refuses to attend to his duties because he reportedly “hates the job???”
You see, as you pointed out, a working vacation isn’t much different from being at the WH and NOT working. So, maybe, just maybe — if the people doing the tabulating had a bent against Obama — we might see the “statistics” stacked in a different light.
And then there’s “most time spent fundraising/campaigning” 🙂
“And what – then – are we to make of the persistent reports from inside Obama’s own camp that, even when he IS at the WH, Obama refuses to attend to his duties because he reportedly “hates the job???”
Circumstantial, diversionary and strawman. The point was days away from the WH. I’ve never seen “persistent reports” that he hates his job. Even if he does, the point still stands.
“You see, as you pointed out, a working vacation isn’t much different from being at the WH and NOT working.”
No. That was sarcasm from me since we’ve been over this many times. I knew that would be brought up.
“Sorry, WM, but I don’t think you can make the case that “Bush stayed away the most” — not now that Obama has had the better part of 4 years.”
Yes, he did stay away the most as all this sites proved. Was he working or not? We don’t know. Was he on vacation? Maybe. Was he away from the WH? Absolutely. The most of any president of our time by far.
Let me see if I can explain it to you William:
One of the mentioned Presidents spent a lot of time at his ranch in Texas taking care of personal issues while still doing the duties required of the POTUS.
The other one has done nothing but vacation, go on golfing excursions, and go to campaign gatherings……..period.
And yes, the most worthless of the two is the one you helped get into the position to destroy America.
That would be fine dusty, if it was accurate. Time away from the white house was the issue. GWB has with out a doubt spent the most away. Period.
Lose the straw man argument.
Funny, I’ve heard conservatives saying that Moochelle is a good looking woman and noting that she obviously works out. I think you are suffering from another attack of 180 degree syndrome again.
I’m glad you think she’s attractive. But if you could be honest, you’d also have to admit that you’ve heard her compared to an ape–and on this very thread to a moose. Why go out of your way to demonstrate your ignorance?
Don’t remember Laura taking so many trips, or sending “servants” out to get he a $50k bracelets. BTW: who paid for that thing?
I’m sure there’s a lot you “don’t remember.” And now you want to start comparing what women wear? Take a look at the cost of clothing worn by Sarah Palin or the wives of Mitt Romney or John McCain, then get back to me.
Wasn’t aware the taxpayer was paying for their clothes.
Of course the size of staff of the First Ladies is difficult to prove because of the proverbial define “staff” ploy. While Moochell’s staff is approximately the same size as Laura Bush’s, it does appear her (Moochell’s) staff is higher paid.
“Kim Coryat, an archives technician at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library, told us it can be difficult to nail down a precise count of staff considering “White House staffing for all offices ebbs and flows with time.” But she said in an e-mail that White House telephone directory records indicate that Hillary Clinton had at least a staff of 13 as of October 1993; 18 as of April 1997; and 19 as of March 2000.”
“Lelyveld said that Michelle Obama’s staff was actually no different than that of her predecessor, Laura Bush. “[W]e have exactly the same staff number as Mrs. Bush and our office organization reflects a similar staffing model, so insinuations otherwise are wrong,” she said. Lelyveld said that the White House’s “personnel records indicate” that there were 24 staffers for Laura Bush at some point. We were able to verify at least 18 staffers for Laura Bush, as of June 30, 2008, via the 2008 White House staff list published in The Washington Post’s White House Watch column. Sixteen people were specifically referred to as a “first lady” staffer, and Amy Zantzinger and Dorothy Thornton served as White House social secretary and deputy social secretary, respectively” (Note: Factcheck was able to identify only 18 staffers for Laura Bush).
“The combined annual salaries for the 22 staffers we can specifically identify as working for Michelle Obama come to $1.6 million. For the 18 we could identify as working for Laura Bush in 2008, the total is $1.4 million.”
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/michelle-obamas-staff/
Thanks, Cracker.
Of course, Black has the right spelling of it. I spelled her name,( and got it wrong), in the context of mooching off the taxpayer for all the expensive vacations she takes. Comparing her to a Moose would be a disservice to Moose. Michelle Obama may be considered good looking in some circles, but not in mine.
As far as the cost of clothes…the MSM made a big deal of the cost of a blouse Ann Romney was wearing. What, 600 bucks, but then turned around and fawned all over Michelle over her 6500 dollar jacket. Ann Romney pays for her own clothes. Michelle, being the wife of the President…not so much. A lot of her clothes are most likely donated by fashion designers. Can’t have her being seen wearing the same outfit twice now, can we?
“Comparing her to a Moose would be a disservice to Moose.”
Yeah, that makes it all better.
“A lot of her clothes are most likely donated by fashion designers.”
Exactly–just as with previous first ladies. Meaning they didn’t cost taxpayers a dime.
I wasn’t even talking about clothes, but about the vacations. Someone else brought up the cost of Ann Romney’s blouse.
Huh? An exact quote from your previous comment: “Ann Romney pays for her own clothes. Michelle, being the wife of the President…not so much. A lot of her clothes are most likely donated by fashion designers.”
Obviously that’s what I was responding to.
That was one of those ‘side items’ that sometimes appear out of nowhere in a comment thread. And I see that you were the one who originally brought up the cost of the candidate’s wife’s clothes. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of the MSM making a big deal out of the price of Ann Romney’s blouse, which she paid for herself and the crickets over the price of Michelle Obama’s expensive jacket which we have determined that she most likely didn’t pay for.
Personally, I could give a flying fig about how much their clothes cost as long as I’m not on the hook for them. And that’s the end of that!
He’s just throwing poop on the wall in hope that you’ll get confused enough that he can find something he can use to claim you are “lying” when – in truth — it’s nothing more than a reasonable person getting tripped up trying to chase a 2 y/o brat around the playground. 😉
Well, if they are donated, and she is the 1st Lady, then I suspect there was a violation of a law or ethic in there somewhere — something about the value of gifts to govt. employees. When I was in the service, we couldn’t accept anything over $20. I guess MOOCHELLE is exempt from being ethical, huh?
I don’t think ethical but it does have to be reported. Remember, Nancy got busted for not doing so.
True, but who is going to “report” on the Obama’s not “reporting” so we’ll know??? 🙂
The same people that busted Nancy. The IRS.
LOL, ah, in case you missed it, the IRS has been turned into a political organ of the Obama Administration. It only attacks his political enemies, not him and his wife.
Do you honestly still have faith in the federal government, WM? 🙂