Today’s Lady News: Michelle Obama’s Shorts Are Still News, Apparently

lea322
wrote on August 21 2009 @ 01:00 pm: [report]

The thing about government funded abortions is, if you don’t support abortion, it seems wrong that you should pay for someone to have one. You can look at it the other way too…government funded abstinence-only education as the only sex education provided would probably be deemed an unacceptable use of a tax payer’s money if they didn’t support that kind of education.

If you don’t support a cause, it seems wrong to be forced to give money to that cause.

*sam*
wrote on August 21 2009 @ 01:11 pm: [report]

@lea: yeah, but I never supported the Iraq war and I was forced to fund it. the bottom line is that no one is *ever* going to be 100% pleased with how their tax dollars are spent. that’s life, get over it.

*sam*
wrote on August 21 2009 @ 01:12 pm: [report]

sorry, that should have read: “either get over it or go to jail in protest”

Raugiel
wrote on August 21 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]

@ lea322 - I see where you are comming from on the funding issue, but we have been forced to pay for things like abstinence-only sex ed for years, and I have never supported that or the increased teen pregnancy rate it brings!  AND in at least some cases an abortion is a medical necessity to save the mother, so why shouldn’t it (at least in those cases) be paid for as a medical expense like any other?

lea322
wrote on August 21 2009 @ 01:22 pm: [report]

I agree. No one is ever going to be completely happy with the way their money is spent. I know I certainly am not. I guess I was just saying that I can understand where those people are coming from.

Shasta
wrote on August 21 2009 @ 01:47 pm: [report]

Let’s be clear:  NONE of the health care overhaul measures that have made it through the committee level in Congress say that abortion will be covered, and one of them explicitly says that no public funds will be used to finance the procedure (factcheck.org).

Abortions covered? How about my annual doctor’s visits?  As a single free-lance writer; I am on my own.  Individual policies are exhorbitantly expensive and cover very little.

Just in case you’re worrying, abortions will never be covered under this reform.  And who even knows IF my doc visits will be with this crazy bomb-throwing mis-information.

Ugh.  I just wanted to talk about Michelle Obama’s shorts.  It’s Friday for Cry Eye.

majicksand
wrote on August 21 2009 @ 02:46 pm: [report]

The First Lady in shorts? Gasp!  If this is news, we are a sad, sad nation.

Dave The Rave
wrote on August 23 2009 @ 01:09 pm: [report]

majicksand,

I agree.  Plus, if someone didn’t know who she was, I’m pretty sure they would turn the other way and RUN!!!!!!  She looks HIDEOUS!!!!!!!

I do, also, have one big complaint:

Why a the taxpayers allowing the Obamas to have tax-funded sightseeing tours?  Their kids should NOT be allowed to go anywhere oveseas!  Oh, well.

majicksand
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 09:20 am: [report]

@Dave: I have to disagree on both points actually.  I don’t think she looks hideous at all.  She looks very normal.  Not “movie star” glamorous certainly, but who gets made up to go to the Grand Canyon?

As to the children accompanying their parents?  Who cares?  They’re all flying on Airforce One anyway, so it’s not as if we have to pay for extra plane fare.  Ok, maybe they get their own room in a hotel and they have to eat.  Personally, I think it’s great that our President and First Lady want to have their kids around instead of leaving them with nannies all the time.  Bonus, those kids are getting to experience the world with a global perspective from a young age.  Maybe they will grow up with some sense.

joyy
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 09:32 am: [report]

@Dave the Rave - Actually, first family trips to national parks can help encourage others to spend time there as well, which is much needed in those small communities, especially when times are tough.  It’s unrealistic to expect a family to not go on vacation ever for 4 (to 8) years, and it’s not like they could just go to kayak and book themselves a trip because they have to roll with security.  Did I miss an overseas trip?  All I’ve heard about so far are domestic trips.

majicksand
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 09:58 am: [report]

@joyy: I hadn’t heard about anything overseas either, but I figured maybe I just missed it.  Thanks for letting me know I’m not the only one.  Regardless, family vacations are a good thing.  Frankly, with all the non-stop stress and criticism that is just part of the job, you couldn’t pay me enough to be President—or put my family through it for that matter.  I feel much better about footing the bill for them to enjoy a few days off than I do about a lot of other things “we the people” are expected to pay for.

bogart4017
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 01:19 pm: [report]

There is nothing wrong with the lady’s legs. And she looks like just what she is.A married mother of two on vacation. Grow up America.

_jsw_
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 01:45 pm: [report]

I just hope she’ll pose for Playboy, and then we can stop paying attention to pointless things like how her legs look while wearing shorts.

Dave The Rave
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]

joyy and majicksand,

Below is an article from a website.  As for her legs, my comment still stands - if it were anybody else, they would say her legs were hideous.  As for the daughters traveling, please read this…............

“Since Mr Obama took office in January, Malia, 11, and Sasha, 8 — joining their father on official visits — have visited Paris, where they went on tours of the Eiffel Tower and the Pompidou Centre. They have seen a slave dungeon in Ghana, been inside the Kremlin and toured the Coliseum. In London, with their mother, they had tea at No 10 with Sarah Brown, made stops at Big Ben and the Tower of London, and met the Queen at Buckingham Palace.”

Now, how many ‘common folk’ would have a chance to do that within less than one year???

Had he lost the election, would they be flying like this?  Doubt it.  Still, if that’s how you view two pre-teens touring the globe, so be it.

writergirl
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 04:14 pm: [report]

Yes, Sasha and Malia have traveled the globe.  But they are no different than Chelsea Clinton who traveled with her parents. 

I know anything not related to Presidential duties is not covered by the White House budget and is, in fact, charged to the President.  When Ford was in office, his son had a party while his parents were out of town.  A few days later, Ford called the son down to the Oval Office and presented the kid with a bill for the party.  The kid had to pay for it.

So while I’m guessing airfare and security are covered for them, anything that falls under “vacation” has to be footed by the Obama’s for themselves and the girls.  But since the trips to Europe were under the guise of official presidential/first lady duty, then we probably footed the bill for that.

joyy
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 04:35 pm: [report]

@Dave the Rave - If airforce one was headed there on business anyways, I see very little harm in allowing the girls to hop on the plane as well.

Dave The Rave
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 05:19 pm: [report]

joyy,

Okay, then.  How about the fact that there is additional security involved, thus ading to the bill.  After all, if you were to have someone tag along on a trip, you have to be on the lookout for them.  All kids have Secret Service protection unless they don’t want it - like Amy and Chelsea.

writergirl,

Yes, I am aware that previous Pres’s have taken their kids along at times, but there wasn’t the sort of need-to-know Fox News in-your-face BS like there is now.  If either one were to do anything “normal” we would hear about it!  If they ride Air Force One, we hear about it.  When they start school, we will hear about it…..........

Plus, I am betting that after Daddy leaves office, either one or both might decide to write a book about their lives, and people will BUY it!

joyy
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 05:48 pm: [report]

@dave the rave - so what you’re saying is anytime any part of the first family goes anywhere or does anything, we foot the bill for security, therefore they shouldn’t go anywhere?  Or it’s only ok when we don’t have to hear about it with in your face hyperactive media coverage?

Either way, I’m really just OK with it, not matter what “but!” you tack onto it.

Dave The Rave
wrote on August 24 2009 @ 06:15 pm: [report]

joyy,

I was simply stating that it is not a “freebie” and that the First Family has to have some common sense.  They don’t need to live in a bubble, but the press needs to tone it down.  That’s all.

majicksand
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 07:26 am: [report]

@Dave: They aren’t ‘common folk’, it’s the First family!  They’ve worked hard and sacrificed a lot (just like every past First family) to get where they are.  I can tell you that if I could make it happen, my children would see the world too.

Honestly, I hope Sasha and Malia grow up to be well-rounded, global-minded, productive Americans.  I hope they are able to set a good example for others of their generation.  I hope they are willing to share their experiences with the world so others may learn from them.  If that means they make a few dollars from a book, so be it.

Dave The Rave
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 02:06 pm: [report]

majicksand,

My original comment was…......

“Now, how many ‘common folk’ would have a chance to do that within less than one year???”

They are children of the President.  My question is intended to mean how many of us (you, me and all the rest in “Friskyland”) can saw we have seen the sights that they have.

That was my comment.

joyy
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 02:15 pm: [report]

@Dave - How many frisky-level commoners could ever have a year of travel as diverse as Paris, Ghana, and London in less than a year?  More than you’d think.  As a college student, I secured enough scholarships and grants to completely finance a summer abroad teaching English that included a week in Moscow, 10 days in Beijing, and 2 and a half months living in Mongolia to teach. 

After I came home from that trip I traveled to Dallas with my bf to visit his mother, then we all drove donw to Austin to visit friends.  A few months before I left to go abroad, I visited AZ (where I live now) to visit my bf (ldr while I finished college) and got to see the grand canyon and sedona for the first time as well.

And that was all while working part time making less than $10/hr.  I’m not from money by ANY stretch, but I went from PA to the Grand Canyon to St. Basil’s to the Great Wall of China to the steppes of Mongolia and came back for a little more domestic travel - all in about 6 months.  You can do anything you put your mind to man.

Dave The Rave
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 02:34 pm: [report]

joyy,

I stand corrected (I guess).  You worked your hiney off and I salute you. 

The kids have seen places MOST of us won’t.  Plus, once the “magic carpet ride” of being daughter to the President is over, it’s fairly safe to say that they may never get a second chance.

I was born in ‘63 and was one of the first to have a breakthrough medical procedure done.  Without it, certain death by two.  With it, they gave me 12 years max and even after that, I was to be in a very sickly condition.

I am 45 and nobody can tell I am anything but a normal, Joe Average guy unless I relate my medical history and what I have been thru.  My parents and I fought tooth and nail to get me in schools, etc, etc, bucking the system the entire way.

So, yes, you can acheive goals if you set your mind to them.
  Plus, in my case it pays to have stubborn parents and a can-do spirit!

majicksand
wrote on August 25 2009 @ 02:34 pm: [report]

@Dave: That’s exactly the point.  They are not like most people.  Their parents worked very hard to put them in a position where tea with the queen is a reality.  Obviously, Joyy (see above post) shares that kind of drive.  I can only hope that these experiences motivate Sasha and Malia Obama to become leaders too.  That’s not nearly ‘common’ enough.