IGX

You now have First Hooker!

Jehoshaphat wrote:

Dude, I could nail this test.

Hey, Romney's not one of us!!

I'm not sure if the point is, the First Lady looks like a supermodel, or a transvestite could be our First Lady or ??

protobuilder wrote:I'm not sure if the point is, the First Lady looks like a supermodel, or a transvestite could be our First Lady or ??

It's called sour grapes. Lets ignore the fact that every president takes vacations and attack a woman because of how she is dressed. Makes me want to vote republican. Cunts. If you think any politician is one of you then you need to suck a bullet out of a gun.

Michelle is an tranny? That's hot.

Such a stupid line of attack it boggles.

What's strangest is someone with 27 posts since 2005, deciding to make a petty thread about the First Lady dressing poorly. It's either someone's sockpuppet or they are suffering Obama derangement syndrome.

Ed Zachary wrote:

protobuilder wrote:I'm not sure if the point is, the First Lady looks like a supermodel, or a transvestite could be our First Lady or ??

It's called sour grapes. Lets ignore the fact that every president takes vacations and attack a woman because of how she is dressed. Makes me want to vote republican. Cunts. If you think any politician is one of you then you need to suck a bullet out of a gun.

Yeah, because the GOP is soooo on the side of women's issues.

Terry B. wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:

protobuilder wrote:I'm not sure if the point is, the First Lady looks like a supermodel, or a transvestite could be our First Lady or ??

It's called sour grapes. Lets ignore the fact that every president takes vacations and attack a woman because of how she is dressed. Makes me want to vote republican. Cunts. If you think any politician is one of you then you need to suck a bullet out of a gun.

Yeah, because the GOP is soooo on the side of women's issues.

Wait, you may have meant the opposite of what I meant. Should I simply make a tranny comment and we could be good?

protobuilder wrote:What's strangest is someone with 27 posts since 2005, deciding to make a petty thread about the First Lady dressing poorly. It's either someone's sockpuppet or they are suffering Obama derangement syndrome.

Obama is fortunate that he essentially has no organized opposition. For all of his mistakes, and there have been a ton, the only campaign against him that ever gained national traction was the birther issues. Rather than talk about real issues, it's easier to post an internet meme or mock somebody for their clothing.

Terry, I was being facetious.

Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

protobuilder wrote:What's strangest is someone with 27 posts since 2005, deciding to make a petty thread about the First Lady dressing poorly. It's either someone's sockpuppet or they are suffering Obama derangement syndrome.

Much like the glorious Couch, I don't fault a guy for reveling in the perks that come with success. What I find interesting is that Bush was endlessly criticized for his "vacations" on that godforsaken ranch of his and Romney's wealth made it impossible for him to be "one of us", while the Obamas vacation and party and dress like something out of the gilded age in these dark times without receiving any thoughtful criticism.

It almost feels like Louis XVI and Marie Antionette turned inside out and adored by Le Miserables. I suspect it's America's desire for Camelot part deux or some weird love of a royalty of the proletariat or some such.

He is, of course, despicable but that's another matter altogether.

Well, you never saw Nancy Reagan dressed like she's going to the club to suck baller dick in the back of a limo, or Barbara Bush dancing on national television with a man in drag.

Never in the history of the United States has a First Lady brought such an air of superiority and entitlement to the position, and then consistently act in such a way that undermines the quiet dignity established by her predecessors.

In short, it's just nigger fuckery...do what I want, say what I want, act like I want, cuz dat what we do.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Much like the glorious Couch, I don't fault a guy for reveling in the perks that come with success. What I find interesting is that Bush was endlessly criticized for his "vacations" on that godforsaken ranch of his and Romney's wealth made it impossible for him to be "one of us", while the Obamas vacation and party and dress like something out of the gilded age in these dark times without receiving any thoughtful criticism.

This is where saying what you feel is true without even taking a quick check at the facts can lead to stupid. Bush took heat for vacations because he took a ton of them by modern standards (way more than Obama or anyone else in decades) including during disasters. There's no indication Michelle Obama dresses more expensively than her predecessors; though inaugural dresses are always expensive because they end up in museums.

But attacking her for political points is fucking stupid anyway, because she has something like a net +35 approval rating. His opponents should focus on things he's actually doing wrong, not go after his super popular wife with obviously false cheap shots.

DDL wrote:the Obamas vacation and party and dress like something out of the gilded age in these dark times without receiving any thoughtful criticism

One, when does anyone receive thoughtful criticism where politics is concerned, and two, plenty of criticism is thrown at the Obamas via national talk radio show hosts, Drudge, and Fox News, hardly small-time players in the news media.

Kaz wrote:Never in the history of the United States has a First Lady brought such an air of superiority and entitlement to the position, and then consistently act in such a way that undermines the quiet dignity established by her predecessors

Wait, are you talking about Michelle Obama or Eleanor Roosevelt?

Jehoshaphat wrote:You now have First Hooker!

She grew up on Chicago's south side. How do you think first hooker got through college?

protobuilder wrote:

DDL wrote:the Obamas vacation and party and dress like something out of the gilded age in these dark times without receiving any thoughtful criticism

One, when does anyone receive thoughtful criticism where politics is concerned, and two, plenty of criticism is thrown at the Obamas via national talk radio show hosts, Drudge, and Fox News, hardly small-time players in the news media.

Absolutely big time players but none are thoughtful even though Drudge's iconoclasm entertains me. Juan Williams, David Brooks, Tom Friedman, et al could be thoughtful if they weren't blinded by the Ossiah's holy light.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Much like the glorious Couch, I don't fault a guy for reveling in the perks that come with success. What I find interesting is that Bush was endlessly criticized for his "vacations" on that godforsaken ranch of his and Romney's wealth made it impossible for him to be "one of us", while the Obamas vacation and party and dress like something out of the gilded age in these dark times without receiving any thoughtful criticism.

This is where saying what you feel is true without even taking a quick check at the facts can lead to stupid. Bush took heat for vacations because he took a ton of them by modern standards (way more than Obama or anyone else in decades) including during disasters. There's no indication Michelle Obama dresses more expensively than her predecessors; though inaugural dresses are always expensive because they end up in museums.

But attacking her for political points is fucking stupid anyway, because she has something like a net +35 approval rating. His opponents should focus on things he's actually doing wrong, not go after his super popular wife with obviously false cheap shots.

I didn't criticize her, Jehoshaphat did. I merely pointed out an interesting dichotomy in perception between the two presidencies.

FWIW Bush's trips to his stupid ranch or any president's trips to Camp David shouldn't count as vacation. That's just getting out of the spotlight and constriction of the White House. Elaborate expensive trips to rub shoulders with the 1% of the 1% are something different, though I hardly care about those either. The costs are chump change in the grand scheme of things.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:The costs are chump change in the grand scheme of things.

Yep

Ed Zachary wrote:Terry, I was being facetious.

I didn't see an emoticon.

Terry B. wrote:

Ed Zachary wrote:Terry, I was being facetious.

I didn't see an emoticon.

I'm not as qualified at internet tomfoolery as Proto. I'll try and do better next time.