First Ladies of the USA - time for some civillity, folks.

[Dot Com]

looks like the rw hate has subsided to a low simmer. Thanks you people

 

[Pogo]

Sooo.... what happens to the concept of "First Lady" when we finally catch up with the world and elect a female POTUS?

First Consort?

Of course, FLOTUS might still be operative... ya never know...

Or she may show up to the party 'stag'...

I like "consort". I like it a lot. Sounds musical.

 

[Jroc]

NO Reporters Will Be Allowed On 5-Star Mooch's Vacation To China...

I don't know any first lady that tried to force her image of a lifestyle on me or push a tyrannical agenda like Micheal

well, Hillary did try to push her idiotic idea of health care on us

So tyrannical to suggest healthy eating habits, I think Hitler came up with that one to destroy human lives...

This is where Stephanie has REAL PROBLEMS....the idea that healthy eating habits might even be brought up in her hearing. Have another Chick-fil-A chicken sandwich with fries and a shake, Stephanie....better yet, have two.

Not the Job of the federal government..understand?

A North Carolina elementary school forced a preschool student to eat cafeteria chicken nuggets for lunch on Jan. 30 after officials reportedly determined that her homemade meal wasn’t up to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s standards for healthfulness, according to a report from the Carolina Journal.

The newspaper reported that the four-year-old girl brought a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, potato chips and apple juice in her packed lunch from home. That meal didn’t meet with approval from the government agent who was on site inspecting kids’ lunches that day.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Division of Child Development and Early Education requires that all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs must meet USDA guidelines. Meals, the guidelines say, must include one serving each of meat, milk and grain and two servings of fruit or vegetables. Those guidelines apply to home-packed lunches as well as cafeteria meals.

Nanny state report: NC school officials reject preschooler?s homemade lunch | The Daily Caller

 

[Kondor3]

Sooo.... what happens to the concept of "First Lady" when we finally catch up with the world and elect a female POTUS?

First Consort?

Of course, FLOTUS might still be operative... ya never know...

Or she may show up to the party 'stag'...

I like "consort". I like it a lot. Sounds musical.

Heck, come to think of it, the term is gender-interchange-able, isn't it?

With an ever-so-feather-light whisper of Roman-era libertine-naughty tossed-in there for good measure...

One new title comin' up... First Consort.

Where's Mel Brooks and Gregory Hines and Madeline Kahn when ya need 'em... there's sumfin' vaguely 'History of the World Part 1' -ish about that...

 

[Geaux4it]

Sooo.... what happens to the concept of "First Lady" when we finally catch up with the world and elect a female POTUS?

Hell, in today's society there very well could be a first lady..

Especially if 'Her Thighness' Clinton is elected.

-Geaux

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First Ladies of the USA - time for some civillity, folks.

Apparently not.

Now rightwing nitwits are going after First Grandmothers.

 

[Foxfyre]

He did, that's true.

But he did post in the op ....A lot of shit has been thrown around over the costs incurred by First Ladies, but virtually all of them have incurred costs - this is very natural and EXPECTED perk that comes with the Presidency, and Presidents of both parties have made full use of this perk.....

Pretty much cementing his diatribe the simple fact that nothing is open to discussion. Adore her or stfu!!

But you see, I might have said the same thing if I had been writing the OP though I probably would have chosen another illustration to use rather than the spending issue. I have already commented on the spending issue in this thread--I do think it is criticizable--but I did that without blasting Stat or calling Michelle names.

When I state my opinion here, I certainly expect it to be fair game for reasoned rebuttal. I usually don't take a side when I write an OP, at least until my second post, but I have no problem with those who do. And when I take a position, I fully expect it to be challenged or whatever.

I was hoping this thread would provide a way to talk about how to do that without being snarky and hateful.

I never blasted Stat or called Michelle names. I did tease Stat about being bossy, yes. I also posted what he called those who did try to discuss the spending the day before. He chose that illustration because he tried to shut down discussion on the very subject in someone else's thread.

Stat will claim he wanted civillity, but he bailed on that himself very quickly

That was my whole point, and I don't think I have ever seen you be uncivil R.D. unless maybe when you are severely provoked, and not even sure about then.

I just thought one promoting civility did better leading by example. But I was set straight. Civility was not the motive. This wasn't to apply to anybody but the First Lady. So oh well.

 

[Hossfly]

looks like the rw hate has subsided to a low simmer. Thanks you people

Thanks for noticing, .com. This is a nice Motel 6 she's slumming in. Saves the taxpayers a whole heapa money. [MENTION=36253]Sally[/MENTION]


First Lady Michelle Obama is staying with her daughters and mother in an $8,000-per-night suite in Beijing, according to Chinese media.

The presidential suite at the Westin Beijing Chaoyang, where the First Family minus Barack are holed up, goes for 52,000 yuan, which translates to $8,350.

And oh yes, you’re paying. All of it. Michelle is classifying this as an official trip.

Here’s a look at the 3,445-square-foot suite – so you can see if you’re getting your money’s worth.


Michelle Staying in $8,000 Beijing Suite | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

 

[Geaux4it]

looks like the rw hate has subsided to a low simmer. Thanks you people

Thanks for noticing, .com. This is a nice Motel 6 she's slumming in. Saves the taxpayers a whole heapa money.


First Lady Michelle Obama is staying with her daughters and mother in an $8,000-per-night suite in Beijing, according to Chinese media.

The presidential suite at the Westin Beijing Chaoyang, where the First Family minus Barack are holed up, goes for 52,000 yuan, which translates to $8,350.

And oh yes, you’re paying. All of it. Michelle is classifying this as an official trip.

Here’s a look at the 3,445-square-foot suite – so you can see if you’re getting your money’s worth.


Michelle Staying in $8,000 Beijing Suite | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

Moochelle is used to spending the money of the 42% that pay taxes. Now, they need to pay their fair share so she can keep up with the jet set.

-Geaux

 

[Jroc]

Beijing hotel workers already 'fed up' with Obama entourage in 3400-square-foot, $8,350-per-night suite inconveniencing 'pretty much everyone' – and the first lady's mother is 'barking at the staff'

Michelle Obama, her daughters and her mother Marian Robinson are staying in a sumptuous presidential suite at a Beijing Westin hotel
Mrs. Robinson has been 'barking at the staff since she arrived,' a hotel staffer said, adding that 'we can't wait for this to be over'
Secret Service agents are monopolizing elevators and booting high-paying guests from their rooms to occupy a block of space near the first lady
Both front and back doors of the hotel are blocked off, with Chinese and U.S. security agents screening everyone who enters
Ordinary Chinese describe Mrs. Obama and her family as kind and gracious, but hotel staff are 'fed up'

Beijing hotel workers already 'fed up' with Obama entourage in 3400-square-foot, $8,350-per-night suite inconveniencing 'pretty much everyone' -- and the first lady's mother is 'barking at the staff' | Mail Online

 

[Gracie]

He did, that's true.

But he did post in the op ....A lot of shit has been thrown around over the costs incurred by First Ladies, but virtually all of them have incurred costs - this is very natural and EXPECTED perk that comes with the Presidency, and Presidents of both parties have made full use of this perk.....

Pretty much cementing his diatribe the simple fact that nothing is open to discussion. Adore her or stfu!!

But you see, I might have said the same thing if I had been writing the OP though I probably would have chosen another illustration to use rather than the spending issue. I have already commented on the spending issue in this thread--I do think it is criticizable--but I did that without blasting Stat or calling Michelle names.

When I state my opinion here, I certainly expect it to be fair game for reasoned rebuttal. I usually don't take a side when I write an OP, at least until my second post, but I have no problem with those who do. And when I take a position, I fully expect it to be challenged or whatever.

I was hoping this thread would provide a way to talk about how to do that without being snarky and hateful.

I never blasted Stat or called Michelle names. I did tease Stat about being bossy, yes. I also posted what he called those who did try to discuss the spending the day before. He chose that illustration because he tried to shut down discussion on the very subject in someone else's thread.

Stat will claim he wanted civillity, but he bailed on that himself very quickly

Oh. That would be the thread I started asking a simple question but quickly went by the wayside.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/345767-hmm-interesting.html

I guess simple questions are not wanted and more volatile ones are. Or...it depends on the thread starter? Gosh, so many things to mull over on the whys and wherefores.

 

[Hossfly]

Beijing hotel workers already 'fed up' with Obama entourage in 3400-square-foot, $8,350-per-night suite inconveniencing 'pretty much everyone' – and the first lady's mother is 'barking at the staff'

Michelle Obama, her daughters and her mother Marian Robinson are staying in a sumptuous presidential suite at a Beijing Westin hotel
Mrs. Robinson has been 'barking at the staff since she arrived,' a hotel staffer said, adding that 'we can't wait for this to be over'
Secret Service agents are monopolizing elevators and booting high-paying guests from their rooms to occupy a block of space near the first lady
Both front and back doors of the hotel are blocked off, with Chinese and U.S. security agents screening everyone who enters
Ordinary Chinese describe Mrs. Obama and her family as kind and gracious, but hotel staff are 'fed up'

Beijing hotel workers already 'fed up' with Obama entourage in 3400-square-foot, $8,350-per-night suite inconveniencing 'pretty much everyone' -- and the first lady's mother is 'barking at the staff' | Mail Online

Hotel staff should bone up on how to act in the presence of royalty. However the Queen Mother should learn to keep her big whiny mouth shut.

 

[Foxfyre]

But you see, I might have said the same thing if I had been writing the OP though I probably would have chosen another illustration to use rather than the spending issue. I have already commented on the spending issue in this thread--I do think it is criticizable--but I did that without blasting Stat or calling Michelle names.

When I state my opinion here, I certainly expect it to be fair game for reasoned rebuttal. I usually don't take a side when I write an OP, at least until my second post, but I have no problem with those who do. And when I take a position, I fully expect it to be challenged or whatever.

I was hoping this thread would provide a way to talk about how to do that without being snarky and hateful.

I never blasted Stat or called Michelle names. I did tease Stat about being bossy, yes. I also posted what he called those who did try to discuss the spending the day before. He chose that illustration because he tried to shut down discussion on the very subject in someone else's thread.

Stat will claim he wanted civillity, but he bailed on that himself very quickly

Oh. That would be the thread I started asking a simple question but quickly went by the wayside.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/345767-hmm-interesting.html

I guess simple questions are not wanted and more volatile ones are. Or...it depends on the thread starter? Gosh, so many things to mull over on the whys and wherefores.

Not to me. People are civil or they are not. People are board bullies or they are not. People love to wallow in the mud and get down and dirty or they don't. People like to feel superior to other people or they don't. People get their jollies by making hateful statements or they don't. Your thread invited a comparison between two first ladies, so people are naturally going to make that comparison or object to the fact that it is being made. But when you write a thread that encourages criticism of the First Ladies, it is not surprising that you will get it.

This thread I interpreted as being a call for civility until I found the the author of the OP wasn't really interested in promoting civility per se, but was pushing a particular agenda. That is fine. Once I understood the agenda I accepted it. It was his thread. He is entitled to post whatever he wishes. Nevertheless I was offended by both those on the right and left who seemed incapable of expressing an opinion about anything without being hateful, vulgar, or uncivil most especially when it was directed at the current First Lady or any of the previous ones.

But I don't get to make the rules and I accept that too. And nobody should be required to post so as not to offend me any more than I should be required not to offend them.

Viscious cycle isn't it.

 

[Gracie]

I never blasted Stat or called Michelle names. I did tease Stat about being bossy, yes. I also posted what he called those who did try to discuss the spending the day before. He chose that illustration because he tried to shut down discussion on the very subject in someone else's thread.

Stat will claim he wanted civillity, but he bailed on that himself very quickly

Oh. That would be the thread I started asking a simple question but quickly went by the wayside.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/345767-hmm-interesting.html

I guess simple questions are not wanted and more volatile ones are. Or...it depends on the thread starter? Gosh, so many things to mull over on the whys and wherefores.

Not to me. People are civil or they are not. People are board bullies or they are not. People love to wallow in the mud and get down and dirty or they don't. People like to feel superior to other people or they don't. People get their jollies by making hateful statements or they don't. Your thread invited a comparison between two first ladies, so people are naturally going to make that comparison or object to the fact that it is being made. But when you write a thread that encourages criticism of the First Ladies, it is not surprising that you will get it.

This thread I interpreted as being a call for civility until I found the the author of the OP wasn't really interested in promoting civility per se, but was pushing a particular agenda. That is fine. Once I understood the agenda I accepted it. It was his thread. He is entitled to post whatever he wishes. Nevertheless I was offended by both those on the right and left who seemed incapable of expressing an opinion about anything without being hateful, vulgar, or uncivil most especially when it was directed at the current First Lady or any of the previous ones.

But I don't get to make the rules and I accept that too. And nobody should be required to post so as not to offend me any more than I should be required not to offend them.

Viscious cycle isn't it.

Really. Take another gander. First few post made by me state this:

National Taxpayers Union - Which First Lady Flies Highest? Michelle vs. Laura
Not sure how legit this is, but I was wondering which first lady spent the most while hubby is in office.

And this a few posts down:

I was looking for some kind of statistics of First Ladies spendings..not just Bush and Obama first ladies. Reagan, kennedy, eisnhower, nixon, carter...etc etc etc. But could not find anything. Maybe I didn't do the google search correctly with the right words.

 

[Gracie]

Then I unsubscribed to this thread because if one does not kowtow and grovel over Michelle Obama, it is "slinging shit all over the thread". I returned to address the latest posts.

 

[Gracie]

And for the record, my question still has not been answered, nor have I found anything on the net showing a comparison of all the first ladys , not just the last most current 2. Guess nobody keeps track because it isn't important.

However, that woman over in china with her entourage as well as her mother, is embarassing when people here are out of work, trying to survive, no jobs, a sucky healthcare system that screwed everyone up and STILL does not work properly to even register (if one does at all) and no care or concern about americans while she is galavanting around and staying in expensive places with her secret service guys protecting her ass, her mother and her kids.
Since when do taxpayers take care of FLOTUS mother? Who is next? Her uncle?

No, I do not like her. At all. She doesn't give a shit about anyone except herself with maybe a close second on her husband....if at all.

 

[Gracie]

I am now unsubscribing again. Note I did not name call the OP or the FLOTUS or her mother or her kids. I did give the impression of my intense dislike, though. Which is a no no and I guess not civil. Shrug.

 

[SAYIT]

So your OP was targeted at giving respect to women. And you post this? Somehow 'physician heal thyself. . . .' or some such comes to mind.

he starts threads so he can spit on everyone..he nothing more than a troll really and a devoted Democrat sheep..... and a whiny one at that

No. I start threads to get people to think, something you are obviously incapable of because all you want to do is to moan and groan. Poor Stephanie, all victimized. All that's left for her is ad hominem attacks. And then she whines even more when people don't take it lying down. Her very behavior proves why we needed this OP. Thank you, Stephanie.

That is all.

The fact remains you started a thread which got folks thinking about civility - a terrific idea BTW - and then used it as another cheap shot flamer. Smooth move, dude.

 

[Foxfyre]

He did, that's true.

But he did post in the op ....A lot of shit has been thrown around over the costs incurred by First Ladies, but virtually all of them have incurred costs - this is very natural and EXPECTED perk that comes with the Presidency, and Presidents of both parties have made full use of this perk.....

Pretty much cementing his diatribe the simple fact that nothing is open to discussion. Adore her or stfu!!

But you see, I might have said the same thing if I had been writing the OP though I probably would have chosen another illustration to use rather than the spending issue. I have already commented on the spending issue in this thread--I do think it is criticizable--but I did that without blasting Stat or calling Michelle names.

When I state my opinion here, I certainly expect it to be fair game for reasoned rebuttal. I usually don't take a side when I write an OP, at least until my second post, but I have no problem with those who do. And when I take a position, I fully expect it to be challenged or whatever.

I was hoping this thread would provide a way to talk about how to do that without being snarky and hateful.

That was my hope as well, especially when I went out of my way to mention the things about Republican FLOTUS I found especially wonderful. Never encountered a First Lady I didn't like (or a Second Lady, for that matter) totally irregardlessof party. But within 10 posts it was already a complete shit storm heaped upon by Righties -

And then you misrepresented me completely and wrote that my OP was about civility toward ladies - well, it should be self-explanatory that it should be civility to all genders all that time, but this OP is very specifically about First Ladies. In fact, I steered pretty much clear of any politics and focused in on the many good things that our First Ladies have done all through history, and still more shit kept flowing.

You are a brilliant poster and a highly valued member of USMB, but when you cannot see that a member like Stephanie is in vulgar attack mode 24/7, then you need glasses.

And I do not need to tolerate incivility 24/7, because this thread is not about Stephanie, regardless how much she may want it to be. It's about First Ladies, and last I looked, Stephanie is not on the list of First Ladies. Or am I wrong about that?

I will say it once again, and quite openly: I liked every First Lady within my lifetime and then some. Alone to survive the rigors of being the spouse of the most powerful man in the world - that alone requires skills that not all of us have. Those ladies are ALL special, every single one of them. I think I made that abundantly clear in the OP.

I admitted I missed your intent with the thread. Once you explained to me that the uncivility was to apply to first ladies only, most especially the current one, I backed off. I acknowledged that I misunderstood and 'misrepresented' your intent with the thread. As I said, it was my mistake. I do apologize.

(And on my way out I can't resist a parting shot. Civility has to start somewhere. And it won't start with the First Lady if those demanding that she be respected are not themselves respectful to anybody else. Okay, sorry about that. I'm done. Really, I am. Unsubscribing. )

 

[Tresha91203]

Believe me folks, not only did they rip apart Laura Bush.... but they had a field day with their children just like they do now with Sarah Palins children

there was a time when children were off limits...welll not today with this bunch of nasty liberals/Democrat followers

don't be fooled by these high and mighty rants about "civility" from them

you NEVER see the Obama's children brought by anyone from the right...but go look through any Palin thread to see how the speak about her children

t

Carter was the first I remember. They were horrid to Amy, IMO, and the Reagan (grown) kids, and Chelsea, and the Bush twins. Children should be off limits but I doubt we ever see those days again.