Michelle's Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous

[Jon]

How is becoming a social worker lowering your standards!

Are you kidding me? Obama's asked for far more than becoming a social worker. Take off your blinders, Luissa. You're becoming pathetic. Read Gem's posts, I'm not going to repeat her. If you're not going to listen to her posts, then stop responding at all.

strollingbones, of course Obama has the right to accept private donations, but it is completely contrast to his promise last year to not accept private donations.

I missed this post earlier:

That is completely and utterly absurd. Taxpayer money is money that comes from people paying their taxes, not from the same people who also pay taxes.

You're right, which is why public funding is no more "taxpayer's money" than private funding. The $3 check-off is VOLUNTARY and you can choose which party you're donating to.

 

[Gem]

strolling bones wrote:

Yet they don't seem to be following their own set of rules.


they ate dinner. do you want them to eat rice and beans nightly or what?

You are absolutely right. Which is why I have stated all along that I don't consider this to be a major issue, that I have no issue with their meal, and I don't consider this to be a "deciding" factor.

What I do think is that sometimes candidates do things like this...and it makes voters wonder. I hadn't thought about Obamas "suvs, food, and airconditioning" statement, the don't seek high paying jobs but more helpful jobs statements, and Michelle's "Obama's gonna ask you to give things up," statements for awhile. This event brought these to mind...because I know that if we stop pursuing better paying jobs...we sure aren't going to be able to afford a $500 meal at a hotel like the Waldorf-Astoria.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a small event making you think about a larger issue. And I think it can be a tactic of those who don't want voters thinking about those larger issues...to try to make it all about the small event, rather than the issues that the small event brought up. Kinda of like people who want to play tit-for-tat with Cindy McCain's spending...it is an attempt to deflect from the issue...which is that the Obamas have stated that one of their goals is to change the way we live...and that they expect and want Americans to live with less.

 

[Annie]

strolling bones wrote:


You are absolutely right. Which is why I have stated all along that I don't consider this to be a major issue, that I have no issue with their meal, and I don't consider this to be a "deciding" factor.

What I do think is that sometimes candidates do things like this...and it makes voters wonder. I hadn't thought about Obamas "suvs, food, and airconditioning" statement, the don't seek high paying jobs but more helpful jobs statements, and Michelle's "Obama's gonna ask you to give things up," statements for awhile. This event brought these to mind...because I know that if we stop pursuing better paying jobs...we sure aren't going to be able to afford a $500 meal at a hotel like the Waldorf-Astoria.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a small event making you think about a larger issue. And I think it can be a tactic of those who don't want voters thinking about those larger issues...to try to make it all about the small event, rather than the issues that the small event brought up. Kinda of like people who want to play tit-for-tat with Cindy McCain's spending...it is an attempt to deflect from the issue...which is that the Obamas have stated that one of their goals is to change the way we live...and that they expect and want Americans to live with less.

What they eat has no meaning for me, personally GW's taste for barbeque leaves me a bit cold, other than on 7/4. On the other hand, the hypocrisy of Obama being out there telling the 'Joe's' of the world that it's only right that the government should take from their work and 'spread it around' to those 'behind' them, well Obama has lots more than Joe, and to my knowledge has yet to hire anyone other than indirectly, the Acorn workers that are undermining our electoral process.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yet they don't seem to be following their own set of rules.

they ate dinner. do you want them to eat rice and beans nightly or what?

It's not about what they eat. We all can eat whatever we want, but it is the height of hypocrisy when Obamas talk out of one side of their mouth and eat lobster out of the other.

Do you recall this Obama response at one of the debates: “I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Perhaps this is the biggest hypocrisy and the greatest look into his character: “The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar. Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004. From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. As did so many of history’s commissars, the Obama’s are charitable only with someone else’s money.

So the modern Marie Antoinette says, "Let them eat lobster!"

 

[Annie]

It's not about what they eat. We all can eat whatever we want, but it is the height of hypocrisy when Obamas talk out of one side of their mouth and eat lobster out of the other.

Do you recall this Obama response at one of the debates: “I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Perhaps this is the biggest hypocrisy and the greatest look into his character: “The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar. Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004. From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. As did so many of history’s commissars, the Obama’s are charitable only with someone else’s money.

So the modern Marie Antoinette says, "Let them eat lobster!"

Not too mention that if socialism is adopted, many will choose to work less and pay less. Then the 'riches' do become finite. When the government promises to care for the least of my brothers, I take a powder on charity. My guess is I won't be alone, we'll let the government sort it out.

 

[Care4all]

It's not about what they eat. We all can eat whatever we want, but it is the height of hypocrisy when Obamas talk out of one side of their mouth and eat lobster out of the other.

Do you recall this Obama response at one of the debates: “I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Perhaps this is the biggest hypocrisy and the greatest look into his character: “The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar. Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned $181,507 to $272,759 each year from 1998-2004. From 1998-2004, they gave between $1,050-$3,400 each year. As did so many of history’s commissars, the Obama’s are charitable only with someone else’s money.

So the modern Marie Antoinette says, "Let them eat lobster!"

hmmmmmmm

how is it being charitable with ''someone elses money'' when he and his wife are in the tax bracket that gets raised? it IS his money?

care

 

[AllieBaba]

strolling bones wrote:


You are absolutely right. Which is why I have stated all along that I don't consider this to be a major issue, that I have no issue with their meal, and I don't consider this to be a "deciding" factor.

What I do think is that sometimes candidates do things like this...and it makes voters wonder. I hadn't thought about Obamas "suvs, food, and airconditioning" statement, the don't seek high paying jobs but more helpful jobs statements, and Michelle's "Obama's gonna ask you to give things up," statements for awhile. This event brought these to mind...because I know that if we stop pursuing better paying jobs...we sure aren't going to be able to afford a $500 meal at a hotel like the Waldorf-Astoria.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a small event making you think about a larger issue. And I think it can be a tactic of those who don't want voters thinking about those larger issues...to try to make it all about the small event, rather than the issues that the small event brought up. Kinda of like people who want to play tit-for-tat with Cindy McCain's spending...it is an attempt to deflect from the issue...which is that the Obamas have stated that one of their goals is to change the way we live...and that they expect and want Americans to live with less.

Cindy McCain has never asked Americans to spread their wealth around, or suggested the government force them to do so.

 

[Care4all]

Cindy McCain has never asked Americans to spread their wealth around, or suggested the government force them to do so.

why not? why hasn't she asked? it's an admirable and patriotic thing to do, not to mention, Christian like....? or just ask them to pay for the warring...

 

[AllieBaba]

Socialism isn't Christian. The government forcing people to give their money to the government is in no way Christian. Nor is it patriotic.

Apparently you have a limited understanding of both Christianity and patriotism. Maybe you should read up a bit.

 

[Annie]

why not? why hasn't she asked? it's an admirable and patriotic thing to do, not to mention, Christian like....? or just ask them to pay for the warring...

And socialist. If that is what you want, seems you may well be on the winning side.

As for me, I want lowest taxes and individual right to support whatever charities, causes one chooses or not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

YOU????????????????

BULLSHIT!

I do thank you for a really good laugh to start the day, however. Have you considered tryouts for some of that open mike stuff?

ROTFKMLMAO!

Can't use big words, just big fonts. Why don't you come into my parlor?

 

[Annie]

YOU????????????????

BULLSHIT!

I do thank you for a really good laugh to start the day, however. Have you considered tryouts for some of that open mike stuff?

ROTFKMLMAO!

LOL! What you can't make up in logic, you substitute font size. What a waste of bandwidth.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

When the government promises to care for the least of my brothers, I take a powder on charity. My guess is I won't be alone, we'll let the government sort it out.

I doubt the loss of what [alms] you do give now will make even a drop in the bucket, yours is such an inconsequential pittance. And inflating the "value" of the trash you give to the thrift store or the rummage sale.... Yup, yup, yup, that is real generosity.

You remind me of some church ladies I know that pat themselves on the back about how they "serve" the homeless by helping out at the community dinners. It is pretty pathetic, these pharisee bitches, whining and complaining the whole while!

It is pointless unless you do it to no material benefit to yourself.

Christian Charity - Good Deeds Bible Quotes

and BTW, you need to really make the effort to acquaint yourself with the actual meaning of "charity."

Christian Charity and Giving

 

[Annie]

I doubt the loss of what [alms] you do give now will make even a drop in the bucket, yours is such an inconsequential pittance. And inflating the "value" of the trash you give to the thrift store or the rummage sale.... Yup, yup, yup, that is real generosity.

You remind me of some church ladies I know that pat themselves on the back about how they "serve" the homeless by helping out at the community dinners. It is pretty pathetic, these pharisee bitches, whining and complaining the whole while!

It is pointless unless you do it to no material benefit to yourself.

Christian Charity - Good Deeds Bible Quotes

and BTW, you need to really make the effort to acquaint yourself with the actual meaning of "charity."

Christian Charity and Giving

If it weren't for people that helped the lowest amongst us, they would die. The government has not and cannot provide for them. Worst of all, the government cannot and will not be able to give them the tools they need to get out of abject poverty, only they can do that, with the help of those that can relate. Those are the groups I choose to give my money to.

Much like Annenberg did, if only Soros would.

 

[I Missthe North]

THOUGH he's battling GOP accusations that he's an Ivy League elitist, Barack Obama has a lifestyle of the rich and famous, like TV show host Robin Leach, who always signed off, "Champagne wishes and caviar dreams!" While he was at a meeting at the Waldorf-Astoria at 4 p.m. Wednesday, Michelle Obama called room service and ordered lobster hors d'oeuvres, two whole steamed lobsters, Iranian caviar and champagne, a tipster told Page Six.

Story here

Your a little bit late on this. Is it really a news flash to your that the Obama family is loaded? It is money that they earned and they have the right the spend it any way they wish. I fail to see your point; if there is one.

 

[SwingVoter]

3. What Bush policy was enacted that caused the current economic problems?

Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, DHS, Iraq war, stimulus checks, and a quintupling of gov't borrowing rate over amount borrowed under Clinton

free market capitalism means old people buy their own drugs, Bush is a socialist and didn't believe that

 

[SwingVoter]

Do I think that one lobster snack-fest is indicative of a problem? Not yet. But it does make me wonder...

It absolutely is a problem, I'm sure Michelle Antoinette has been told by campaign managers not to do this again, especially with all the volunteers and low wage staffers eating Ramen Noodles so she can become first lady

 

[I Missthe North]

It absolutely is a problem, I'm sure Michelle Antoinette has been told by campaign managers not to do this again, especially with all the volunteers and low wage staffers eating Ramen Noodles so she can become first lady

I think you have to understand that Obama is WILLING to give up some the luxuries he now enjoys for the good of the rest of America. He is clearly open to the idea of giving me of his salary every year to America, it just so happens he has so much money, it does not really hurt him. That is kind of the point. He realizes that people in his position have a responsibility to give more back to society because it has given them so much. I don't see how you can hold it against him that even after he gives back he still has a lot left over. He is at least willing to help which is more then can be said for the Republicans.

 

[Annie]

I think you have to understand that Obama is WILLING to give up some the luxuries he now enjoys for the good of the rest of America. He is clearly open to the idea of giving me of his salary every year to America, it just so happens he has so much money, it does not really hurt him. That is kind of the point. He realizes that people in his position have a responsibility to give more back to society because it has given them so much. I don't see how you can hold it against him that even after he gives back he still has a lot left over. He is at least willing to help which is more then can be said for the Republicans.

Really? Where do you get that from? Will his giving up caviar or argula, help the less fortunate? How?

If not, how will punishing the rich?

Do you see a problem?

 

[SwingVoter]

I think you have to understand that Obama is WILLING to give up some the luxuries he now enjoys for the good of the rest of America.

please tell me which cuts to the White House personal staff he's recommended