• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ann Romney Never Worked a Day In Her Life.

Really?

Michelle Obama’s Pricey Vacation Wardrobe - ABC News

For the Christmas Day church service at the Kaneohe Bay Marine Base, Mrs. Obama was photographed in a seemingly simple white sundress with red and yellow stripes. The dress, however, was by French-born, U.S.-based designer Sophie Theallet, and would have cost the first lady almost $2,000 when she bought it in 2009. More recent designs by Theallet sell for even more.

For the meet-and-greet with service members and their families in a nearby mess hall later in the day, Mrs. Obama dressed down — in a printed green $950 Comme des Garcons skirt with bag waist.

2,000 for a dress isn't that expensive
 
I want the smartest and most capable person available and that is Romney compared to Obumble. I also like the fact that Romney is less likely to do something for the money-its harder to buy off a wealthy successful man.

Maybe he's rich because he is already bought off
 
Ok, how about juggling stay at home Mom, with MS and Cancer? How's that factor in?

Listen, I make far less money than Governor Romney, and after my wife retired from the military, we decided that she should stay at home to raise our kids while I worked. It's tough, despite me making a decent living, first in the military as well, then as a civilian. I'll tell you this though, she get's up when I do, and is working well after I get home. People get paid to do the things she does, but she does it "for free."
I never said being a SAHM wasn't hard work. In fact, I've said the opposite. I do, however, stand by the argument that being a working mother is harder than being a SAHM - yes, even with MS and Cancer, particularly if you have a crap ton of money to help you with the "job" of raising kids. I'd also add that being a working mother with MS and Cancer would be harder than being an SAHM with MS and cancer.

The thing is, if you're a working mother you have to balance many/all of the things that SAHMs do in addition to work. You're doing two jobs when someone else is doing one. The comparison to me is a false one.
 
I think Vicky is a really inspirational woman on the show because of her success and hard work. There is nothing wrong with her taking pride in her work over housework. Housework has value especially for children and families, and good mothers and fathers are doing a great thing for the rest of society by taking care of their kids. People shouldn't have kids unless they are willing to raise them. There needs to be more great parents, and they should take pride in not working hard to wash dishes and change diapers... anybody can do that. They deserve respect for actually parenting and being teachers to their children.

Lastly, a woman doesn't have to be SAHM to be a great parent, nor do you have to work a job to be earn respect.


Me and my x pretty much broke up because she wanted absolute control of the kid and if told him to chew with his mouth closed or said he needed to wear a collared shirt to my mother's birthday at a fancy restaurant where they have a dress code it was a bis issue.
 
George Washington, owned other Human Beings as chattel and did absolutely nothing to set the moral record straight as President of the United States. Exactly how did that work out morally for Washington?

Being "good" means more than being opportunistic, and being an effective leader is neither a right, nor a sure fire guarantee of undeserved privilege.

It worked well enough. You are using an anachronistic viewpoint. They mostly realized there was a problem with slavery, but during their time it was fine. Furthermore, it has not derailed his Presidential legacy to the degree it did for Thomas Jefferson.
 
At some point, we have to stop digging this hole. And Obama only knows the big government way, which is to keep digging with other people's shovels until we run out of shovels.


Republicans, have been telling this lie, ever since Obama lowered his hand during the Presidential Inauguration. At what point does his detractors recognize that the actual record of what Obama has done, and has not done as President, is right there for all to read for themselves?

The hole that you speak of, was created under Republican leadership. Hello! It was created during eight (8) long dramatized years of an Administration that had difficulty spelling the word phrase: Domestic Agenda, remember? And, it was catalyzed by something called: "like a new Pearl Harbor" - taken directly from the Neocon playbook called: Project for A New American Century, recall?

Liquid fuel was then poured on the matter, by Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan (under the Bush 43 Administration), when he began pulling the plug on interest rates, which forced the USD into a tailspin with respect to every single major currency around the world, or did you forget that fact as well? Meanwhile, the Outsources of American Middle Class Jobs that had been sponsored by the Reagan Administration, bolstered by the Bush 41 Administration and woefully ignored by the Bush 43 Administration; finally came to a head in middle America when insufficient economic infrastructure caused too great a reduction in the bottom line jobs numbers. As people began to lose their jobs in America, they could no longer make their mortgage payments and mortgage loan defaults began to rise to historic levels - all during the Bush 43 Administration.

Meanwhile, as a direct cause of the boneheaded decision by Bush 43, to invade both Afghanistan AND Iraq, the cost of fuel at the pump began to rise on massive oil contract speculation across the board. As, both you and I, began paying higher fuel bills, we also began paying a simultaneous increase in commodity costs across the board, as we checked out of our local grocery store, on a month by month basis. The fuel costs had driven both the production and delivery costs of agriculturally produced goods, to an even higher level than before the most recent U.S. economic recession.

By this time, the deck was stacked so strongly against the U.S. economy, that it imploded in 2008, before President Obama took office. During the run-up to that implosion, millions of American had lost BOTH their jobs AND their homes - with millions more to follow. Fuel prices continued going up, right along with the speculative price of oil - and so too, has your food costs on a month to month basis.

Combined with institutional CDS/CDO dead weight paper lying all over the Street, brought to you by none other than Gramm/Leach/Bliley/Clinton, the accelerated collapse of our financial institutions commenced, and banks across the board simply stopped lending. Of course, six (6) years earlier, because the Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Alan Greenspan's decision to run an assault team against the U.S. Dollar, he had no more room to effect a change in the international appetite for the USD, as by that time, interest rates were already at an all time low. With little to now appetite for the USD abroad, it continued to weaken - thus providing no international support to cushion the effects of the illiquid financial markets, here at home (something we used to be able to count on in prior economic downturns).

At every step of the way, it was Republicans were were in control. Now, all of a sudden, Republicans like Mitt Romney, have developed the economic genius to pull the country out of the pit, that Republicans put us in? How does that work, exactly?

Republicans create the problem. They then sit back and watch the house burn to the ground, while complaining about the fire department arriving too late, or taking too much time to put out the flames. Then they come running in at the last moment, labeling the Fire Chief as an abject "failure," while lying to the American People about how they had nothing to do with setting the house on fire - AND - lying to the American People about their newly found qualifications for putting the fire out.

Is that how it works in amusement park known as the Romney brain trust?

At what point did Republicans, all of sudden, out of nowhere, earn the right to claim moral high-ground on ANY subject related to Foreign Policy and/or Economics?
 
I never said being a SAHM wasn't hard work. In fact, I've said the opposite. I do, however, stand by the argument that being a working mother is harder than being a SAHM - yes, even with MS and Cancer, particularly if you have a crap ton of money to help you with the "job" of raising kids. I'd also add that being a working mother with MS and Cancer would be harder than being an SAHM with MS and cancer.

Does the working mother (making decent income) that hires house cleaners, and dry cleans clothes, has tutors help the kids, etc etc...have it worse? Where's the limit?

The thing is, if you're a working mother you have to balance many/all of the things that SAHMs do in addition to work. You're doing two jobs when someone else is doing one. The comparison to me is a false one.

Does the same apply to working fathers? Fathers have to balance work and family commitments as well, why do you leave them out?

If you are thinking of a single mother, with little or no education struggling to support her kid(s), I'll agree with you. But dual income families....not.
 
The hole that you speak of, was created under Republican leadership. Hello! It was created during eight (8) long dramatized years of an Administration that had difficulty spelling the word phrase: Domestic Agenda, remember? And, it was catalyzed by something called: "like a new Pearl Harbor" - taken directly from the Neocon playbook called: Project for A New American Century, recall?

Wouldn't you put the hole at the very least, back to the 1980s?
 
At what point did Republicans, all of sudden, out of nowhere, earn the right to claim moral high-ground on ANY subject related to Foreign Policy and/or Economics?

1980.



....
 
SheWolf must be rich.
 
Does the working mother (making decent income) that hires house cleaners, and dry cleans clothes, has tutors help the kids, etc etc...have it worse? Where's the limit?
When the stay at home mother has two jobs instead of one.

Does the same apply to working fathers? Fathers have to balance work and family commitments as well, why do you leave them out?
Why do I leave fathers out? Because this entire thread has been about stay at home mothers. :roll:

And sure, it applies to fathers too. Being a working father is harder than being a stay at home father.

If you are thinking of a single mother, with little or no education struggling to support her kid(s), I'll agree with you. But dual income families....not.
I'm thinking the average stay at home mother vs. the average working mother. One works one "job" and the other works two.
 
It worked well enough. You are using an anachronistic viewpoint. They mostly realized there was a problem with slavery, but during their time it was fine. Furthermore, it has not derailed his Presidential legacy to the degree it did for Thomas Jefferson.

That's the problem with America today. You classify something that real Human Beings went through as being "anachronistic," as opposed being the causality for the social disaster we are witnessing today. You have a hard time making the connection between Causation and the Effect of Causation. People who think this way (or, fail to think) seem to ignore the universal rules of cause and effect.

When I asked, how did that work out for George Washington, you took the question literally. That tells me (in no uncertain terms) that drawing the logical nexus between the causality of such immoral judgements, and the current set of social debacles this nation faces today with respect to race relations, is completely lost on you.

I feel sorry, for those who can't see the clear connection between several hundred years of upholding such an immoral institution such as American Slavery, and the current sad state of affairs in this country today - which can be seen in all kinds of ways throughout our society. It's as if, some people are completely unable to comprehend the affects of their own history. Let alone, know anything about how to correct what still runs pervasively and destructively throughout this country.

The fact that other nations did it, is no excuse - especially for a country that was supposed to have been founded on the principle that "all men are created equal," - as it simultaneously labeled a segment of its population, 3/5ths Human. The problem is not my recognition of these facts. The problem is the continual failure of too many in our society to muster the moral decency that allows them to recognize the absolute causal connection from the days of both Washington and Jefferson, to the present.

Of course, when you've never had ancestors who lived through American Slavery, and when you never had ancestors who died because of American Slavery, and when you never had relatives (alive) who lived through Jim Crow, or who died as a direct result of trying to defeat Jim Crow; then you don't have the slightest clue about the things I speak about.
 
Last edited:
For a wedding dress.

I bought an after-market prom dress from a resale store for $45.00 - no one had a clue it was reused, not a wedding dress and cheap as hell.
 
For a wedding dress.

For many people, $2,000 for a wedding dress is completely beyond their means. The Michelle Obama dress we're talking about was a sundress. A sundress for $2,000? Good gravy.
 
When the stay at home mother has two jobs instead of one.


Why do I leave fathers out? Because this entire thread has been about stay at home mothers. :roll:

And sure, it applies to fathers too. Being a working father is harder than being a stay at home father.


I'm thinking the average stay at home mother vs. the average working mother. One works one "job" and the other works two.

And in this day and age, the father doesn't? I'm a working Father, with a stay at home wife, and I work when I get home too. I'm also damn happy that my kids are at home with their mother rather than in a day care with someone "keeping them alive."


I have to say, I love it when liberals who normally encourage people to "make their own choices, live their own way" come down on someone choosing to live a way that can be called "conventional" or "conservative".

By the way, Michelle Obama was raised by a stay at home mother. Rather well, I'd say.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't you put the hole at the very least, back to the 1980s?

In all fairness - I would place the initiation of the real hole, as far back as 1913.

Now, ask me why. Or, do the math, and figure out why 1913, is a year that will live in veiled infamy - for two very sinister reasons.
 
That's the problem with America today. You classify something that real Human Beings went through as being "anachronistic," as opposed being the causality for the social disaster we are witnessing today. You have a hard time making the connection between Causation and the Effect of Causation. People who think this way (or, fail to think) seem to ignore the universal rules of cause and effect.

When I asked, how did that work out for George Washington, you took the question literally. That tells me (in no uncertain terms) that drawing the logical nexus between the causality of such immoral judgements, and the current set of social debacles this nation faces today with respect to race relations, is completely lost on you.

I feel sorry, for those who can't see the clear connection between several hundred years of upholding such an immoral institution such as American Slavery, and the current sad state of affairs in this country today - which can be seen in all kinds of ways throughout our society. It's as if, some people are completely unable to comprehend the affects of their own history. Let alone, know anything about how to correct what still runs pervasively and destructively throughout this country.

The fact that other nations did it, is no excuse - especially for a country that was supposed to have been founded on the principle that "all men are created equal," - as it simultaneously labeled a segment of its population, 3/5ths Human. The problem is not my recognition of these facts. The problem is the continual failure of too many in our society to muster the moral decency that allows them to recognize the absolute causal connection from the days of both Washington and Jefferson, to the present.

Of course, when you've never had ancestors who lived through American Slavery, and when you never had ancestors who died because of American Slavery, and when you never had relatives (alive) who lived through Jim Crow, or who died as a direct result of trying to defeat Jim Crow; then you don't have the slightest clue about the things I speak about.


And yet, despite all that you wrote, 1) Washington's administration was a damn huge success 2) Washington was revered by his colleagues 3) Continued to be revered for over 2 centuries. The question of slavery did not come into being the most important thing for that time period.

I see and understand all that you wrote perfectly, but judging the Washington administration as an executive administration strictly on the question of slavery from the perspective we now hold, is severely weakening.

I frequently dwell on the past in the relation to the present. It's what I do every day, and have for many years. It's not lost on me. I'm just damned cautious about History and our perceptions of it. The reason why I bring up anarchronisms is that your moral judgment upon Washington was not a large implication of Washington the President circa late 18th century, and was certainly not labeling him an immoral man in the 19th century.
 
Last edited:
And in this day and age, the father doesn't? I'm a working Father, with a stay at home wife, and I work when I get home too. I'm also damn happy that my kids are at home with their mother rather than in a day care with someone "keeping them alive."


I have to say, I love it when liberals who normally encourage people to "make their own choices, live their own way" come down on someone choosing to live a way that can be called "conventional" or "conservative".

I know your response wasn't to me - but earlier when I was commenting on the issue (this morning) I wasn't giving a thought to her being a Stay at Home Mother - it was the 'after the kids are grown' part.

Now Ann: after her kids were grown she didn't go get a job - or go back to college - she became heavily involved with numerous organizations that mainly centered around helping kids and families in a variety of ways. . . having volunteered my time: I know any such effort makes someone super busy.

It sounds like she did that and then helped take care of their grandkids when they were born - enabling their mothers to stress less while they pursued careers (those that did, anyway).

Having learned that (which I didn't know before) - I have respect for her, she sounds like she's been after one thing or another her entire life - and even while being ill with MS for the last 13 years she's still volunteering her time and efforts.

That - overall - is my issue with people: whether they'er paid or not - I don't like it when people just rely on their spouse and don't make any effort to do anything with theirself in their entire life. . . this issue of mine comes from people I know who are just like that (my mother in law) - never been employed, never went to college, only spent her time and family fortune being a recluse drug addict, moved in with her mother when her husband left her in 69 and stayed there.

Is Ann Romney like that? Hell no - but I'll admit that I honestly thought she was a recluse :shrug: I'm imagining that a lot of people think the same.
 
Back
Top Bottom