Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyway, Farrakhan is far more well known (and has NO influence in the Whitehouse and has never had any relationship with the President) than Rev. Wright. Most people had never heard of Rev. Wright until three yes three out of context quotes were ran in loop continuously last year.
Fully aware you were being sarcastic.
I was being sardonic in response.
BTW - it does appear from the limited research I quickly have done this morning that paid staffers for the First Lady (as a budget item) became a fixture during JFK's administration.
Actually, if you read the entire thread many people have criticized the amount of staff Laura Bush had, and Hilary Clinton had and Nancy Reagan had etc etc...
I don't like to dog on the first lady in any way shape or form. However, this is excessive whether it is a republican doing it or a democrat.
Are there people who are mad about it only because it is MO? Probably - but not all.
---and I do agree with you that bi*ching about the family going on state visits, how absurd! Of course Obamas wife and children should go with him. What an incredible experience for those girls.
I think that the point isn't that people on this thread have brought up the staffs of previous first ladies. It's that the staff of first ladies wasn't an issue until this presidency. When groar asks if people criticized Laura Bush's staff, she's asking did anyone start a thread prior to 2009 about any first lady's staff. And the answer to that would be no. Which suggests that the first lady having staff, even a large staff, isn't the issue. The issue is Michelle Obama having staff. Why then would there be an issue of Michelle Obama having a staff when it wasn't an issue that Jacqueline Kennedy had a staff? What makes it an issue?
That is what I think and you know that about me again WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you psychic?
WE ARE IN A RECESSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you grasp that?
I dont care about previous they ran a platform on CHANGE of all the bull that is in Washington, yet they continue it on a larger scale even!!!!!!!!!
WE ARE BROKE they should be setting the example! And they are being just shameful about spending our money on crap!!!!!!!
WOW!!! We've been in recessions before. Eleanor Roosevelt had a staff, and OMG we were in a DEPRESSION. What was she thinking? That rich, entitled first lady, how dare she have a staff???? We were BROKE! People needed jobs. And she employed a staff???? OMG!!!
WOW!!! We've been in recessions before. Eleanor Roosevelt had a staff, and OMG we were in a DEPRESSION. What was she thinking? That rich, entitled first lady, how dare she have a staff???? We were BROKE! People needed jobs. And she employed a staff???? OMG!!!
Worst economic times since the Great Depression...time to tighten the belt,even for the Obama family.
Worst economic times since the Great Depression...time to tighten the belt,even for the Obama family.
When you are in a position to actually determine what positions need to be trimmed, let us know. In the meantime, it would seem that most of the criticism on this topic is just another excuse to manufacture false outrage. Real outrage would require real knowledge of the staff and how they function. But no one on this forum has such knowledge.
When you are in a position to actually determine what positions need to be trimmed, let us know. In the meantime, it would seem that most of the criticism on this topic is just another excuse to manufacture false outrage. Real outrage would require real knowledge of the staff and how they function. But no one on this forum has such knowledge.
All of them,if she needs assistants she can use her own money.
Looky there, we saved some of the people's money.
Or how about this,if YOU think she needs attendants,you send her your money?
We can make it so you can help directly by giving YOUR money.
All of them,if she needs assistants she can use her own money.
Looky there, we saved some of the people's money.
Or how about this,if YOU think she needs attendants,you send her your money?
We can make it so you can help directly by giving YOUR money.
How does that sound?
Once again, this sounds like false outrage. Real outrage would require real knowledge of what the members of the staff actually do, which is knowledge none of us posting have. If the staff are performing official functions, then it would clearly be appropriate that the staff be paid for by the government. If the staff are performing personal functions, then it would be more appropriate for Mrs Obama to pay them from her personal funds. But since we don't know the nature of their functions, we cannot make such determinations of how they should be paid, nor we can we own any genuine outrage over their compensation.
Once again, this sounds like false outrage. Real outrage would require real knowledge of what the members of the staff actually do, which is knowledge none of us posting have. If the staff are performing official functions, then it would clearly be appropriate that the staff be paid for by the government. If the staff are performing personal functions, then it would be more appropriate for Mrs Obama to pay them from her personal funds. But since we don't know the nature of their functions, we cannot make such determinations of how they should be paid, nor we can we own any genuine outrage over their compensation.
They do nothing....because the First Lady has no official duties that benefit the nation.
She is just his wife,no more,no less.
She can have as many flunkies as she wants on her own dime,in such times as these where the real unemployment rate is edging close to 20% having people around her filling in her date book while they are losing their homes seems....quite elitist.
They aren't royalty,they are just some rich people from Chicago.
They do nothing....because the First Lady has no official duties that benefit the nation.
She is just his wife,no more,no less.
She can have as many flunkies as she wants on her own dime,in such times as these where the real unemployment rate is edging close to 20% having people around her filling in her date book while they are losing their homes seems....quite elitist.
They aren't royalty,they are just some rich people from Chicago.
The First Lady most certainly has official duties. And always has had. Dolly Madison would tell you so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
