Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 59    Average: 2.8/5]
89 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 18853
Rating: 2.8
Category:
Date: 01/07/10 12:05 PM

89 Responses to First Lady Requires 26 Assistants On USA`s Tab

  1. Profile photo of Nic_Gaybot
    Nic_Gaybot Female 18-29
    230 posts
    January 6, 2010 at 10:54 pm
    Link: First Lady Requires 26 Assistants On USA`s Tab - She has 26 people working for her costing more than $1.5 million a year. Paid for by the US taxpayers. What recession?
  2. Profile photo of Chiakimoto
    Chiakimoto Female 18-29
    40 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:11 pm
    More politics. Yay. Still bored.
  3. Profile photo of ElDavo
    ElDavo Male 18-29
    2149 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    I`m sure she`s not the first first lady to spend a bunch of money, but that`s seriously retarded. I suppose we should all have expected this from Michelle Obama, but whatever.
  4. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:16 pm
    I`ve heard it through the grapevine from workers of a reasturant she frequents or used to that she`s an A class b!tch.
  5. Profile photo of lakerzz8
    lakerzz8 Male 18-29
    366 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:23 pm
    It only listed 22 assistants and it says she has 26. Also at least one of them works for Barack as well.
  6. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2442 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:27 pm
    The government wasting our money? No way!
  7. Profile photo of opiebreath
    opiebreath Female 18-29
    15782 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    Surprise surprise, our government has a lot of useless positions!
  8. Profile photo of bobhub600
    bobhub600 Male 13-17
    964 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    When did we start calling it "The Great Recession" as if it was some sort of unforgiving god of hell-fire!
  9. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2442 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:43 pm
    When did we start calling it "The Great Recession" as if it was some sort of unforgiving god of hell-fire!

    Because "Cthulhu" was already taken.


    Praise him!

  10. Profile photo of ggolbez
    ggolbez Male 18-29
    1933 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:44 pm
    That`s creating jobs!
  11. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25408 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    Its good being the boss. these are the perks that come with!
  12. Profile photo of piemaster
    piemaster Male 18-29
    226 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 12:50 pm
    What?? You asked us to make jobs! ;)
  13. Profile photo of Joolin
    Joolin Male 18-29
    1003 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 1:10 pm
    The current population of the US is 304,059,724.

    If the First Lady requires $1.5 million for her servants and we, the taxpayers are paying for it, then each one of us 304,059,724 Americans is paying $0.00493324134 per year.

    That means that if you didn`t have to chip in for her servants, you would be able to buy 0.00369993101 cans of cheap, generic soda per year.

    Just thought I`d put things in perspective.

  14. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 1:18 pm
    F*ck that I want my $0.00493324134 damn it!!!!
  15. Profile photo of cannibal151
    cannibal151 Male 18-29
    1551 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 1:19 pm
    What, me worry?
  16. Profile photo of kilroy5555
    kilroy5555 Male 30-39
    496 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 1:21 pm
    Can you please take my $0.00493324134 and put it towards a tomahawk missile to insert into the rectum of a terrorist via GPS and detonate? Kthxbye.
  17. Profile photo of primetimekin
    primetimekin Male 18-29
    7936 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 1:21 pm
    "That means that if you didn`t have to chip in for her servants, you would be able to buy 0.00369993101 cans of cheap, generic soda per year.

    Just thought I`d put things in perspective."

    True, but with that said, its 58k a year for servants....I`m pretty sure you could drastically lower their wages and higher more people at possibly more useful positions. Create employment in all the right places

  18. Profile photo of feiku
    feiku Female 18-29
    526 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 1:25 pm
    Thank you for putting it in prospective. I`m sure other presidential wives had hired staff as well; I doubt this is a new concept. Very slanted article. :/
  19. Profile photo of toneman
    toneman Male 30-39
    527 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 1:26 pm
    If any believes this to be unusual for a First Lady, you are beyond naive.
  20. Profile photo of yofuzzy
    yofuzzy Male 13-17
    310 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 2:03 pm
    just because she doesnt have any official duties doesnt mean shes not important to america. the press would be all over her if she looked homeless and did nothing but sit around the house all day, even though she has no official duties.

    The 1.5 million dollars that goes to thoes people gets injected into the economy, as they spend that money. and think about honestly lowering their wages, you dont just have your average assistant off the street in the white house, do you really want thoes people around the president and assisting the country?

    also, half their job titles were assistant to the president AND first lady, its not like she has someone to tie her shoes for her

  21. Profile photo of Nidonemo
    Nidonemo Male 18-29
    9311 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 2:12 pm
    "Because without America there is no free world."

    ...yeahhh about that...I have some serious disagreements with your tagline sir...

  22. Profile photo of WakeToWood
    WakeToWood Male 30-39
    180 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 2:19 pm
    If putting a $0.00493324134 amount on it makes you feel better, we are all doomed. I personally am upset about the assistant vice principal in my school district that is pulling in 6 figures!
  23. Profile photo of avalon
    avalon Male 18-29
    187 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 2:29 pm
    Here was laura bush
    http://scienceesl.blogspot.com/2009/10/f...
    most of the names are the same, granted there are an additional 4 people, but hey....
  24. Profile photo of RobSwindol
    RobSwindol Male 30-39
    2510 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 2:30 pm
    ***If any believes this to be unusual for a First Lady, you are beyond naive.***

    BINGO!!!

  25. Profile photo of moefreak
    moefreak Female 18-29
    1963 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 2:52 pm
    1) It says "by the staff of thelastcrusade.org", a very very right wing religious blog. Hardly a reliable source.
    2) Most of those seem to say they are also (and probably primarily) assistants to the president. Not just the first lady.
  26. Profile photo of Pilanus
    Pilanus Male 18-29
    675 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 2:54 pm
    Um, Considering that nearly every first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt has been her own damn Charity organization, having a staff is perfectly understandable. Sure, I suppose the two people on the top could have their salaries halved and still do pretty well, but meh.

    Besides, if you look around that site some more, you will find tha they are one of those ultra conservative "LIBERALS ARE EVILLLL!!!!!!" sites... The first lady could have a singular assistant making minimum wage and they would complain...

  27. Profile photo of GothicQueen
    GothicQueen Male 13-17
    4376 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 3:12 pm
    wow...i`m soooo schocked.
  28. Profile photo of lukeforv123
    lukeforv123 Male 18-29
    1053 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 3:22 pm
    Last summer, the Senator Ensign of Nevada has a little get together a the beach I work at. He had 41 assistants. I saw 10 of them blowing up ballons.
  29. Profile photo of BrimstoneOne
    BrimstoneOne Male 30-39
    2229 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 3:25 pm
    Canada Free Press my ass! The editors are all to mostly right wingers that are venomous supporters of the Conservative party or the CRAP (Conservative Reform Alliance Party)
    This is another lunatic (right wing) mouth piece. The CBC, Canadian Press, and the AP are "real" news agencies. The others are either part of the media cartel, or are some mouth piece for a rich `guy` with an (political) agenda.
    Rather funny/sad how one agency will quote another with out verifying the source material.
  30. Profile photo of padge
    padge Male 18-29
    11 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 3:28 pm
    The current population of the US is 304,059,724.

    If the First Lady requires $1.5 million for her servants and we, the taxpayers are paying for it, then each one of us 304,059,724 Americans is paying $0.00493324134 per year.

    That means that if you didn`t have to chip in for her servants, you would be able to buy 0.00369993101 cans of cheap, generic soda per year.

    well seeing as how there are only about 156.3 mil taxpayers, its twice that. but thats not the point. point is that is just part of the frivolous spending from the gov. keep looking the other way as politicians take away your standard of living, one .0097 at a time.

  31. Profile photo of CheeseMan1
    CheeseMan1 Male 18-29
    1409 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 3:34 pm
    OH NO!!! This corruption will not stand! Time to revolt against all liberals! Who`s with me?

    This article has incited my rage!

  32. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 3:57 pm
    It`s nice, in a way, to see that other countries do politics the same way as here in the UK. Although here you would expect at least 1 of her staff to be a member of her own family, employed with public money to do nothing.
  33. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 3:57 pm
    Oh my...One of the busiest women in the world needs assistants. What will people be crying about next?
  34. Profile photo of leesah
    leesah Female 18-29
    1566 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 4:01 pm
    I think she inherited most of those people anyway. Plus, has anyone checked out those titles? They`re kinda necessary. "Director of Press for the First Lady" is obviously useful, plus some of them are for her and the President. & I say this as a Republican.
  35. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 4:02 pm
    Also, it`s not like she hired people to do her shopping or tuck her kids in at night or anything, they are actual assistants that help her deal with the media and political pressure that accompany being the spouse of the leader of the free world...
  36. Profile photo of Angilion
    Angilion Male 40-49
    12390 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    I think spouses of elected officials should have no official position and no publically funded assistants. If they want that, they should stand for election themselves.

    Joachim Sauer has the right approach, in my opinion.

    If you`re thinking "who?", that`s my point. His wife is Angela Merkel, arguably the most powerful person in Europe. He deliberately doesn`t get involved in politics - she was elected, not him.

  37. Profile photo of StarDagger
    StarDagger Male 40-49
    1189 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 4:28 pm
    Michelle Obama can do no wrong, move on.

    -2 to IAB for even beginning to question the Consort to The One!

  38. Profile photo of jesseg
    jesseg Male 13-17
    98 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    You would think they`d get more pay...
  39. Profile photo of Listypoos
    Listypoos Male 40-49
    3069 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 4:53 pm
    Well i guess that`s kinda expected when you give an unelected spouse of a politician an official title like `first lady`....there comes with it an expectation of duties, and therefore why not expect a staff to help with those duties?

    We in the UK have it a slightly different way.... we don`t give the spouses of our politicians any title or expect them to perform an official role alongside their partner. yet they still always seem to find a way of getting taxpayers money via the back door - and not doing anything for it.

    At least your politicians seem to be a bit more open about what their family members are getting out of them being elected....and what is expected of them in return for it.

  40. Profile photo of SilverThread
    SilverThread Male 30-39
    3435 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 4:57 pm
    Eh it could be 20 more people on the unemployment line.
  41. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31799 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush ONE
    This is from the link Avalon provided. The list there is just a reprint, below it (in red) is this info about former First Lady`s assistants.
    idk if it`s accurate or what, just correcting the idea that Laura Bush had 22 "staff", she apparently had ONE.
  42. Profile photo of Nidonemo
    Nidonemo Male 18-29
    9311 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    "OH NO!!! This corruption will not stand! Time to revolt against all liberals! Who`s with me?
    This article has incited my rage!"

    Doesn`t it go "We the people" somewhere? I remember hearing that a long time ago...where was it...

  43. Profile photo of NOFX14
    NOFX14 Male 18-29
    1141 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 5:19 pm
    Oh you mean the first lady has assistants!? I bet Laura Bush had them too. But suddenly it`s such a concern? There are a lot more unnecessary things that our money is paying for.
  44. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 5:20 pm
    Cat5 Complaining like he`s losing tax dollars. What are you anyway the Rush Limbaugh Winnipeg? Don`t worry about it dude.
  45. Profile photo of The_Maddog
    The_Maddog Male 30-39
    3371 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 5:22 pm

  46. Profile photo of ryano
    ryano Male 30-39
    1 post
    January 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm
    Laura Bush had between 24 and 26 according to snopes.
  47. Profile photo of StphnHrrll
    StphnHrrll Female 18-29
    434 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 5:26 pm
    She can pay for those assistants out of her own pocket then. NOT WITH TAX PAYER DOLLARS! This country spends money like it`ll always be there. We are never going to leave this recession if we don`t cut back on spending. Plain and effing simple. If I had a mortgage of $1200 a month and my husband lost his job and we couldn`t afford to pay our mortgage anymore we wouldn`t upgrade to a bigger house!
  48. Profile photo of StphnHrrll
    StphnHrrll Female 18-29
    434 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 5:27 pm
    ryano actually according to snopes she had 18 I litereally was just there.
  49. Profile photo of videogamer
    videogamer Male 18-29
    3016 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 5:42 pm
    @The_Maddog: Erm... I don`t get it?
  50. Profile photo of wcclark
    wcclark Male 18-29
    731 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    StphnHrrll, it says she had at least 18. Anita McBride, Laura Bush`s former Chief of Staff states that she has between 24 to 26 workers.

    Source

  51. Profile photo of Gleeballs
    Gleeballs Female 18-29
    850 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 6:13 pm
    this isnt even the stupidest thing that taxpayers pay for.
  52. Profile photo of doug1963aaa
    doug1963aaa Male 40-49
    347 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 6:25 pm
    I don`t see the problem. The First Lady is essentially the American Princess. It`s not what I would prefer, but given the current state of affairs, having about 2 dozen assistants does not seem inappropriate.

    Think about what harm she could cause if she said/did the wrong thing. Thank goodness that there are people to look after and help her. That it costs what it does is truly trivial compared to the cost of what her husband does.

  53. Profile photo of Reganom
    Reganom Male 18-29
    505 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 6:29 pm
    "you would be able to buy 0.00369993101 cans of cheap, generic soda per year."

    It`s still 1.5 million that can be put to better use don`t you think?

  54. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 6:39 pm
    What a fuss over nothing! Sheesh, you walk the streets and no-one says nothing, but put 27 ho`s and a pimp in the White House and suddenly everyone`s a critic...

    J-O-K-I-N-G-!!! :-)

  55. Profile photo of Keegan31
    Keegan31 Male 18-29
    228 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 7:08 pm
    So, 26 more people have jobs. This is a problem?
  56. Profile photo of LemonTarte
    LemonTarte Female 18-29
    1441 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 7:14 pm
    Wow she`s really stirring things up in the White House isn`t she? The first ladies have NEVER had this many assistants before!

    /sarcasm.

  57. Profile photo of unbanned
    unbanned Male 13-17
    999 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 7:20 pm
    this is soo stupid.
  58. Profile photo of Dragonlord
    Dragonlord Male 18-29
    734 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 7:28 pm
    A lot of these are simultaneously working for the president, so I think it`s a stretch to say that they wouldn`t be here without the first lady.

    And besides, judging by the job titles, almost all of them are doing something of valid importance to the government, and therefore the tax payer.

  59. Profile photo of cagel
    cagel Female 18-29
    275 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 7:31 pm
    This site is a slanted conservative publication.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/michell...

    And whether or not a first lady should have a staff isn`t partisan either, as Laura Bush had a staff of 24 at one time.

    Indeed, if you ask me, the notion of more jobs in a time of economic crisis is probably a productive thing; it rings of FDR`s workers programs. Indeed, cutting back will not generate more revenue nor pay the people who are alive and need to be clothed, fed and sheltered. So maybe knee-jerk protests against people having jobs just because they happen to be for the first lady aren`t really logical.

    Maybe they`re just partisan and a little bit sexist.

  60. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 7:34 pm
    There`s a bunch of false data in the forums.

    Mrs. O. has the same number of staff that Mrs. B. had, and in fact the current staff was based on the previous one.

    Check FactCheck.org
    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/michell...

  61. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 7:35 pm
    Darn it, Cagel beat me to it.
  62. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 9:13 pm
    Unless you have information contradicting factcheck, feel free to shut up now.

    Michelle has 24, Laura Bush had between 18 and 24.
    Laura Bush evidently paid them more though. Thus suggesting you paid more for Laura Bush`s assistants than you pay for Michelle`s (by about 260k).

    Now that we know this, I`m assuming everyone who was complaining about Michelle will now complain about Laura instead?

    After all, what you say is generated by facts, not mindless rage at an opposing viewpoint right?

  63. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 9:30 pm
    > Baalthazaq
    > Laura Bush evidently paid them more though (even though she had less of them)

    You know, a logical conclusion is that more of Michelle`s would be African Americans than Laura`s, because she herself is black. If that is true, and overall they get paid less than Laura`s staff did even though there are more of them, then the President needs to address some pay equity issues right in his own office.

  64. Profile photo of StudentOfMan
    StudentOfMan Male 40-49
    346 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 10:14 pm
    Seems to me the author is trying to make the point that a) the first lady is not a political position, b) as it is not a political position it does not warrant support staff, c) even if it did warrant staff, these numbers (for any presidency) are excessive, and d) throughout times of crisis in our nation in which the citizenry is expected to sacrifice so to has our government been held to the same standard.

    The idea that our government is spending well over 1.4 million dollars per year for 22 handlers for non-critical personnel period, let alone during these times is ludicrous. And as far as FDR`s economic policies, independent of the revisionist history that they were effective, such policies are mere governmental diversions as such employment cannot be maintained and provides false data for key indicators. This isn`t about partisanship, all of these jackasses are spending your money indiscriminately and Americans continue to give them passes because they`re on "our team&qu

  65. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 10:47 pm
    There are a lot better reasons to dislike the Obamas than this.
  66. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 10:54 pm
    @studentofman

    The author is grousing because it`s not his party on PA. Ave.

    That`s all. He wasn`t whistleblowing on Laura Bush, in fact, he`s deliberately misconstrued the facts to make it seem like other first ladies had almost none and that simply isn`t the case. See the factcheck link.

    No. It isn`t the government`s job to sacrifice with us. It doesn`t work like that. It hasn`t worked like that since before FDR. Government`s job in a sluggish economy is to pump the primer through deficit spending and recollect through taxes later.

  67. Profile photo of janus_games
    janus_games Male 18-29
    294 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 10:54 pm
    @OldOllie

    Agreed.

  68. Profile photo of wcclark
    wcclark Male 18-29
    731 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 10:55 pm
    And what are those, Ollie?
  69. Profile photo of Batmanners
    Batmanners Male 18-29
    4007 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 11:23 pm
    "This site is a slanted conservative publication.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/michell...

    QFT

  70. Profile photo of mercedzdanz
    mercedzdanz Male 18-29
    97 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 1:14 am
    The fact that a website may have a slanted viewpoint does not negate the truthfulness of the stated claims. It`s like Fox News network, a conservative website, saying that there are 13 stripes on the American flag. The fact that the statement came from the Fox News Network does not mean that the flag does not have 13 stripes.
  71. Profile photo of belunan
    belunan Male 30-39
    1507 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 1:34 am
    My household net income is the same whether she has 26 staff members or none at all. This sums it up for me:
    http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm...
    Aside from that, I don`t think I could give a poo if I tried.
  72. Profile photo of KRAYZEEGIRL
    KRAYZEEGIRL Female 30-39
    447 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 1:35 am
    The U.S. Government spends tax money on many ridiculous things throughout all levels. I worked for a county Health Department in Maryland and kept track of a $13 million budget for just 1 division. $99 per month for box lunches to feed 12 people at a meeting. Approx. $4000 per year for pens and post-it`s just within that division. Worst of all over $5 million per year to provide ob/gyn and dental care for illegal immigrants that were given pseudo social security numbers in order to have medical files created within the department. This was just for one county within one of the smallest states in the nation. I worked in Annapolis, MD and I specifically remember one illegal immigrant patient that would pull up in her mercedes convertible with her 2 kids and come into our clinic for her free healthcare, it makes me nauseas just thinking about it.
  73. Profile photo of Suicism
    Suicism Male 18-29
    3625 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 2:19 am
    There IS no recession once any financial entity secures a Monopoly.

    Good question; did that answer it?

  74. Profile photo of bankvole
    bankvole Male 30-39
    959 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 2:43 am
    Not as bad as Ireland`s ex Taoiseach (prime minister) Bertie Ahern spending 20000 euro ($30000) a year on make up.
  75. Profile photo of Wundt
    Wundt Male 40-49
    410 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 5:01 am
    I imagine that Laura Bush had a staff and budget the same size.
  76. Profile photo of haveheart
    haveheart Female 18-29
    407 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 5:24 am
    wow. thats messed up.
  77. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 7:08 am
    Hillary Clinton had 3.. Some sources say 19
    Laura Bush had 1.. Some sources say 18
    Jackie Kennedy had 1.. Again some say 9

    I`m guessing it depends on who is defined as an "assitant" or "aide". Either way 26 people is a lot.

  78. Profile photo of mrwnt
    mrwnt Male 18-29
    334 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 9:32 am
    The amount it works out to per American shouldn`t matter. It`s the principle of the matter. If Obama bought himself a platinum-plated water dish for his dog, are you saying you wouldn`t have a problem with that if it worked out to only .0000001 cents per American?

    "Indeed, if you ask me, the notion of more jobs in a time of economic crisis is probably a productive thing; it rings of FDR`s workers programs"

    Yes why don`t we just employ the entire US population with government jobs? That`ll solve our problems!

  79. Profile photo of Philomath
    Philomath Male 18-29
    174 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 10:00 am
    I don`t think that the words "requires 26 assistants" are anything but inflammatory. I certainly don`t know what being first lady entails, but those "assistants" seemed to be involved with slightly more than answering her beck and call.
  80. Profile photo of RecycleElf
    RecycleElf Male 18-29
    3622 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 11:02 am
    lets call it a harem...
  81. Profile photo of cagel
    cagel Female 18-29
    275 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 12:46 pm
    "Yes why don`t we just employ the entire US population with government jobs? That`ll solve our problems!"

    Nice logical fallacy! I didn`t say that. But if the private sector won`t pick up the slack; if capitalism is failing and people are homeless and starving, should the people (since the WE, the people, are the government) just let people slip into poverty?

  82. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 8, 2010 at 10:53 pm
    OldOllie "There are a lot better reasons to dislike the Obamas than this."

    wcclark "And what are those, Ollie?"

    You mean aside from the fact that they`re incompetent socialist thugs?

  83. Profile photo of urnotthetime
    urnotthetime Male 18-29
    80 posts
    January 9, 2010 at 1:18 am
    Ollie, I disagree. The Obamas are *very* competent at being socialist thugs.
  84. Profile photo of wcclark
    wcclark Male 18-29
    731 posts
    January 9, 2010 at 1:41 am
    For the last time, Obama is not a socialist. He is a liberal. READ THIS.

    It makes more sense to say that Ronald Regan was a socialist. After all, he was a supporter of FDR`s New Deal (his father even working as an administrator in the Dixon area), and his taxes on dividends were significantly higher than Clinton`s, Obama`s and both Bushs`.

    "It`s far easier to gull people with politically freighted terms than it is to argue actual facts", isn`t it?

    Source 1
    Source 2

  85. Profile photo of cagel
    cagel Female 18-29
    275 posts
    January 9, 2010 at 1:56 am
    wcclark is my hero
  86. Profile photo of LadyWeasel
    LadyWeasel Female 30-39
    471 posts
    January 9, 2010 at 2:52 am
    Why does any ONE person need 26 damn assistants? I`m only one person and I have ONE assistant.. ME! So, she has a garden... Does she even work in it, herself? What ever happened to self-sufficients?

    What`s next? Hiring someone to wipe her ass for her? "Your moist towelette, M`am."

  87. Profile photo of SaintsFan
    SaintsFan Male 30-39
    256 posts
    January 9, 2010 at 7:05 am
    26 Assistants? I can hear the Obama`s now.....

    POWER!!!! UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!!!

  88. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    January 9, 2010 at 5:01 pm
    wcclark "For the last time, Obama is not a socialist. He is a liberal."

    The difference between a liberal and a socialist is about the same as the difference between vanilla and French vanilla. Throw in progressives, communists, and fasçists, and you have old-fashioned vanilla, natural vanilla, and home-style vanilla.

    They`re all arrogant jerks who think they can run your life better than you can.

  89. Profile photo of wcclark
    wcclark Male 18-29
    731 posts
    January 9, 2010 at 6:48 pm
    "I hear the voices. And I read the front page. And I know the speculation, but I`m the decider and I decide what is best."

    "I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary."

    "I think I`d be a better president because I was in combat."

    - Arrogant Jerks. (Now available in Strawberry!)

Leave a Reply