Hmm. Interesting.

The First Lady is a very expensive hanger-on....an un-needed barnacle on the boat. As far as I'm concerned, the First Lady should not have a budget...should not have a staff....should not have a voice. She should be relegated to being the President's wife, someone who should get a job if she wants to do something productive with her life instead of wasting taxpayer monies on a whole lot of nothingness.
 
The First Lady is a very expensive hanger-on....an un-needed barnacle on the boat. As far as I'm concerned, the First Lady should not have a budget...should not have a staff....should not have a voice. She should be relegated to being the President's wife, someone who should get a job if she wants to do something productive with her life instead of wasting taxpayer monies on a whole lot of nothingness.

You do not know much about politics or women do you?
 
The First Lady is a very expensive hanger-on....an un-needed barnacle on the boat. As far as I'm concerned, the First Lady should not have a budget...should not have a staff....should not have a voice. She should be relegated to being the President's wife, someone who should get a job if she wants to do something productive with her life instead of wasting taxpayer monies on a whole lot of nothingness.

You do not know much about politics or women do you?

I know plenty about both. Just because the First Lady has long had the stump and taxpayer money for which to fulfill her desires, that doesn't mean she deserves it or even needs it. Feel free to engage me further if you'd like to know more about where I stand. I promise you you'll find that I'm no amateur in the realm of politics.
 
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.
 
The First Lady is a very expensive hanger-on....an un-needed barnacle on the boat. As far as I'm concerned, the First Lady should not have a budget...should not have a staff....should not have a voice. She should be relegated to being the President's wife, someone who should get a job if she wants to do something productive with her life instead of wasting taxpayer monies on a whole lot of nothingness.

Makes sense. But how will her co-workers react to having a Secret Service detachment following her around the office?
 
The First Lady is a very expensive hanger-on....an un-needed barnacle on the boat. As far as I'm concerned, the First Lady should not have a budget...should not have a staff....should not have a voice. She should be relegated to being the President's wife, someone who should get a job if she wants to do something productive with her life instead of wasting taxpayer monies on a whole lot of nothingness.

You do not know much about politics or women do you?

I know plenty about both. Just because the First Lady has long had the stump and taxpayer money for which to fulfill her desires, that doesn't mean she deserves it or even needs it. Feel free to engage me further if you'd like to know more about where I stand. I promise you you'll find that I'm no amateur in the realm of politics.

Typical whining rant from someone who wants his "wants" to override the facts.
 
Let's see...in 2011 the U.K Daily mail had this headline about the Mooch for her costs in just 2010!...
.
Expensive massages, top shelf vodka and five-star hotels: First Lady accused of spending $10MILLION in public money on her vacations

Michelle Obama accused of spending $10m in public money on vacations | Mail Online

To get a jist of the article, because many subversives don't want to read this sort of thing about the "MONEY PIT" that lives in the White House....

"The Obamas' summer break on Martha's Vineyard has already been branded a PR disaster after the couple arrived four hours apart on separate government jets.

But according to new reports, this is the least of their extravagances.

White House sources today claimed that the First Lady has spent $10million of U.S. taxpayers' money on vacations alone in the past year."
 
I have no problem with First Ladies having a budget allotted to them. More often than not they do more good for the country than their husband.
Well. they are easier on the eyes, and the brain...

If you say so....:eek:

article-2541580-1ABF967200000578-594_306x509.jpg
 
The First Lady is a very expensive hanger-on....an un-needed barnacle on the boat. As far as I'm concerned, the First Lady should not have a budget...should not have a staff....should not have a voice. She should be relegated to being the President's wife, someone who should get a job if she wants to do something productive with her life instead of wasting taxpayer monies on a whole lot of nothingness.

You do not know much about politics or women do you?

I know plenty about both. Just because the First Lady has long had the stump and taxpayer money for which to fulfill her desires, that doesn't mean she deserves it or even needs it. Feel free to engage me further if you'd like to know more about where I stand. I promise you you'll find that I'm no amateur in the realm of politics.

No need to get on your high-horse. People need to have a purpose to their lives, even women. The first lady cannot have a job or a career in the usual sense and her husband is always busy and preoccupied so we as a nation out of a desire for every presidential marriage not to end in divorce gives her a ceremonial office and the means to stay busy and productive, that's the politics of being pro-women and pro-marriage in our country.
 
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.
[MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]

No exact stats have ever been kept and no one really cared until Obama was elected and then all of a sudden a number of butthurt, fucked up racist righties who call Michelle Obama "Mooch" (or worse) decided it was an issue.

Every First Lady incurs expenses. It's part and parcel of the Presidency. President Bush sent Laura AND both of his daughters on goodwill vacations to Africa, and you can bet that that was expensive, from the extra security precautions taken whereever the First Family flys (from re-routing traffic to sealing off manholes to vacating buildings, as needed) to housing and proviant for the secret security detail to the usual gifts for dignitaries of other lands (something that has been an American tradition since George Washington himself).

Were Michelle Obama to go nowhere and just tend to her well planted garden on the White House lawn, then Righties would be screaming that she doesn't represent us well on the outside, that she's too "lazy" to get out "da House".

So, it does't really fucking matter what she does, they, those rabid Righty racists are gonna scream, which is funny as fuck when you consider that Laura Bush travelled far more than Michelle Obama and I see no way that Michelle can now catch up to Laura's very extensive vacation record.

But from Michele Bachmann down to the horny toad somewhere in "I fucked my sister but don't tell no one, West Virginia", they lie out there asses about everything.

Remember the Obama trip to India that Michele Bachmann said was costing 200 MILLION PER DAY? Of course, it was a lie. That's all those righties do is to lie.

It is a case of eternal butthurt and it is only going to get worst when Hillary wins both of her terms.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what Bill's allowance would be.:eusa_whistle:


Well, you could always ask him once he gets his allowance.

Yes, indeed, 2016 could set some historical records in many ways...


...first lady President...

....first former President come back as First Man...

...first Latino Vice-President...

...first +45 state sweep since 1984....


:eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:


yes, 2016 could become very interesting.
 
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.
[MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]

No exact stats have ever been kept and no one really cared until Obama was elected and then all of a sudden a number of butthurt, fucked up racist righties who call Michelle Obama "Mooch" (or worse) decided it was an issue.

She is guilty of conspicuous consumption , a limousine liberal. When noticed you whine racism.
ClassVsCrass-Abigail-Adams.png


ClassVsCrass-Presidential-Vacations.png


ClassVsCrass-Bush-Vacations.png


Class vs crass
 
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.
[MENTION=42649]Gracie[/MENTION]

No exact stats have ever been kept and no one really cared until Obama was elected and then all of a sudden a number of butthurt, fucked up racist righties who call Michelle Obama "Mooch" (or worse) decided it was an issue.

She is guilty of conspicuous consumption , a limousine liberal. When noticed you whine racism.
ClassVsCrass-Abigail-Adams.png


ClassVsCrass-Presidential-Vacations.png


ClassVsCrass-Bush-Vacations.png


Class vs crass


Oh, you poor thing, you. All that butthurt.
 

Forum List

Back
Top