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

[Statistikhengst]

Poor Stephanie, she just whines on and whines on and whines on, goes off topic, rants and crys like a four year old. So much anger in her.

Tsk. Tsk.


It is totally entertaining!

Oh, and btw, I go where I like, too. And I will remember to do that with you very often now...

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.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I remember this photograph. Syrenn posted it last year and I was looking at it and wondering why anyone would think the two women on left looked appopriately dressed. They weren't. They look like two high priced hookers coming up the steps of the Georgia Dome. I'm sorry but I have to be honest with you here, Drifting Sand. When it comes to politics? These two wives are a reflection of their husbands and the clothing they select sends a powerful message. ( wrong one )

A daytime outfit with a sleeveless white top and a pink skirt with flats is preferable to what these two have on but I would have selected a nice Jackie O two piece suit for Michele Obama. Still she is sending a far better message then the two on the left! My 2 cents.

- Jeri

Ummm --- that there is a photoshop.

>> A photograph from the latter event has been manipulated (as shown above) to add a figure representing Michelle Obama, making her appear to come off a very distant third in fashion sense with her plain, rumpled skirt contrasting with the shapely and stylish backsides of the two European women. That image is clearly a fabricated one, as Michelle Obama was not present at the Spanish dinner (she was back in Washington, where she participated in the unveiling of a memorial bust of Sojourner Truth), and other newspaper pictures of the same scene do not include her in the position shown (i.e., the Michelle Obama figure was obviously added to the original photograph later) -- see Snopes

You learn a lot about people's legitimacy of reasoning by what they have to make up lies about.

So, would you say that photoshopped photo--and none of us believes it is anything other than a photoshopped photo--was done by a Michelle Obama critic? Or was it done by a Michelle Obama supporter wanting to accuse Republicans or conservatives of that sort of thing? Do you know? Does it matter? Do you think that photo is used more by conservatives to ridicule Michelle Obama? Or is it used more by liberals to denigrate conservatives? Do you know? Does it matter? Who makes up the most lies? Does it matter?

The idea I thought Stat was promoting was a return to civility and some sense of decency in our national culture--at least until he himself started being insulting to others here. But even if he doesn't support his own OP, it was still a good one.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] - nice try, it won't work.

This thread is very specifically about civility toward First Ladies of the United States of America. I made that abundantly clear in the OP.

Stephanie trolled this thread the entire way and attacked at every turn, and yet, you had nothing to say to her.

After more than 100 attacks from Stehanie in the last 3 days alone, enough is enough. If you don't like it when I write back to let her know she has gone overboard, tough shit. That conversation has nothing to do with the OP at all. She derails and trolls and goes off topic, and you want to condemn me? Ridiculous. Get yer blinders off and take a look at how much shit Stephanie sprays all over the walls all over the place and then get back to me, eh?

I very much believe in civility, but Stephanie has not been civil to me even once in all four months of my time here in USMB. Not one single time. Nuff said.

 

[Foxfyre]

Poor Stephanie, she just whines on and whines on and whines on, goes off topic, rants and crys like a four year old. So much anger in her.

Tsk. Tsk.


It is totally entertaining!

Oh, and btw, I go where I like, too. And I will remember to do that with you very often now...

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

Sorry Steph. You and I are often on the same page in this stuff, but a good OP and a good topic is a good OP and a good topic no matter who starts it. I have no quarrel with the OP. It is a good topic. What he is otherwise is irrelevent to that.

\

 

[R.D.]

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

Sorry Steph. You and I are often on the same page in this stuff, but a good OP and a good topic is a good OP and a good topic no matter who starts it. I have no quarrel with the OP. It is a good topic. What he is otherwise is irrelevent to that.

\

A good op?!?

It's time for people to stop snarking about and attacking our current FLOTUS.

Last edited by Connery; Today at 01:25 PM. Reason: op request[

Really?(edited in the same fashion as op has done throughout this thread )

Anything that is not slobbering adoration at her feet is deemed an off limit attack by the op, that works for you?

 

[Pogo]

Lemme just throw this out to whom it may concern about Stephanie.

Is she hyperpartisan? Sure, definitely. But she's also got a delightful sense of humor, if you just figure out how to access it, which is a worthy endeavor if you succeed.
In that mayhaps lies your challenge. And it's not that hard to do. Erleichda.

(/offtopic)

 

[Foxfyre]

Ummm --- that there is a photoshop.

>> A photograph from the latter event has been manipulated (as shown above) to add a figure representing Michelle Obama, making her appear to come off a very distant third in fashion sense with her plain, rumpled skirt contrasting with the shapely and stylish backsides of the two European women. That image is clearly a fabricated one, as Michelle Obama was not present at the Spanish dinner (she was back in Washington, where she participated in the unveiling of a memorial bust of Sojourner Truth), and other newspaper pictures of the same scene do not include her in the position shown (i.e., the Michelle Obama figure was obviously added to the original photograph later) -- see Snopes

You learn a lot about people's legitimacy of reasoning by what they have to make up lies about.

So, would you say that photoshopped photo--and none of us believes it is anything other than a photoshopped photo--was done by a Michelle Obama critic? Or was it done by a Michelle Obama supporter wanting to accuse Republicans or conservatives of that sort of thing? Do you know? Does it matter? Do you think that photo is used more by conservatives to ridicule Michelle Obama? Or is it used more by liberals to denigrate conservatives? Do you know? Does it matter? Who makes up the most lies? Does it matter?

The idea I thought Stat was promoting was a return to civility and some sense of decency in our national culture--at least until he himself started being insulting to others here. But even if he doesn't support his own OP, it was still a good one.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION] - nice try, it won't work.

This thread is very specifically about civility toward First Ladies of the United States of America. I made that abundantly clear in the OP.

Stephanie trolled this thread the entire way and attacked at every turn, and yet, you had nothing to say to her.

After more than 100 attacks from Stehanie in the last 3 days alone, enough is enough. If you don't like it when I write back to let her know she has gone overboard, tough shit. That conversation has nothing to do with the OP at all. She derails and trolls and goes off topic, and you want to condemn me? Ridiculous. Get yer blinders off and take a look at how much shit Stephanie sprays all over the walls all over the place and then get back to me, eh?

I very much believe in civility, but Stephanie has not been civil to me even once in all four months of my time here in USMB. Not one single time. Nuff said.

Unless we promote civility in all things, as well as toward our First Ladies, then our society becomes increasingly coarse and vulgar and insulting and petulant. I am not about to defend you against Stephanie or she against you. Since I have chosen to befriend both of you, whatever differences you have should be worked out between the two of you. Unless you want to do some conflict management in which case I would agree to referee impartially, but I doubt either one of you want to go through that.

My point is you believe she has been uncivil toward you. She believes you have been uncivil toward her. Civility does not mean we must agree with each other or appreciate what each other says or not call each other out. It does require that we focus on the post, however, and not throw silly, petty, hateful personal insults at each other.

I just thought a thread devoted to civility was a good place to demonstrate that kind of leadership. But you say it was intended for First Ladies only and not to women or other people in general. I accept that and I did take it further than that. My mistake.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Sorry Steph. You and I are often on the same page in this stuff, but a good OP and a good topic is a good OP and a good topic no matter who starts it. I have no quarrel with the OP. It is a good topic. What he is otherwise is irrelevent to that.

\

A good op?!?

It's time for people to stop snarking about and attacking our current FLOTUS.

Last edited by Connery; Today at 01:25 PM. Reason: op request[

Really?(edited in the same fashion as op has done throughout this thread )

Anything that is not slobbering adoration at her feet is deemed an off limit attack by the op, that works for you?

Except that he left out the slobbering part. He very well may have intended that, but in this case, I prefer to take statements at face value instead of writing into them what I think the other probably meant.

 

[R.D.]

Sorry Steph. You and I are often on the same page in this stuff, but a good OP and a good topic is a good OP and a good topic no matter who starts it. I have no quarrel with the OP. It is a good topic. What he is otherwise is irrelevent to that.

\

A good op?!?

It's time for people to stop snarking about and attacking our current FLOTUS.

Last edited by Connery; Today at 01:25 PM. Reason: op request[

Really?(edited in the same fashion as op has done throughout this thread )

Anything that is not slobbering adoration at her feet is deemed an off limit attack by the op, that works for you?

Except that he left out the slobbering part. He very well may have intended that, but in this case, I prefer to take statements at face value instead of writing into them what I think the other probably meant.

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!!

 

[Foxfyre]

A good op?!?


Really?(edited in the same fashion as op has done throughout this thread )

Anything that is not slobbering adoration at her feet is deemed an off limit attack by the op, that works for you?

Except that he left out the slobbering part. He very well may have intended that, but in this case, I prefer to take statements at face value instead of writing into them what I think the other probably meant.

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.

 

[bodecea]

Maybe Obama will 'stain' their dresses. The new norm for Dem POTUS

-Geaux

^ Can't stand that President Obama is a devoted husband and father.

Is that what his gay lover, ... I mean trainer says?

-Geaux

Cool story, bro.

 

[longly]

What goes around, comes around; the way to make the world a nasty place is to be nasty person.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Except that he left out the slobbering part. He very well may have intended that, but in this case, I prefer to take statements at face value instead of writing into them what I think the other probably meant.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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

 

[R.D.]

Except that he left out the slobbering part. He very well may have intended that, but in this case, I prefer to take statements at face value instead of writing into them what I think the other probably meant.

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

 

[Dot Com]

US First Lady Stresses Freedom of Speech in China - ABC News

You go girl!!!

 

[Dot Com]

China sees Obama girls, but not Xi's daughter - latimes.com

She is a perfect diplomat

 

[Hossfly]

US First Lady Stresses Freedom of Speech in China - ABC News

You go girl!!!

If FLOTUS helps obtain free speech in China, I'll campaign for her as POTUS.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

I'll take a reprieve on Taiwan and Iran's warship sent packing back to Iran. DEAL!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Now we need to send her to Malaysia to find out the truth about the plane. I never did believe it crashed. The plane is numero uno in national security. We've got to find that plane. PRONTO.

 

[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'...