- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
No I don't.
Thanks for hitting the poll up too.
Btw, I updated your Fox News Repub Presidential Debate thread too.
No I don't.
Yep.....quite the surprise. But you also have to remember when Hastert was picked for Speaker. It was as a replacement for another who got himself in trouble.
They didn't think he had any skeletons in his closet. But then the MS Media changed that perspective, huh?
The hypocrisy of it all is mind blowing. I love it when a politician, who stumps from a perceived moral high ground, pushes their party's moral issues, all the while, turns out to be a low-life scumbag. I especially like to read about the religious windbags getting busted.
Honestly, it bothers me none that Lindsey Graham appears to be as queer as a three dollar bill. It's mainly the hypocrisy of it all that I find unappealing.
The First Lady role is symbolic. She used to be the official hostess. I'm surprised the feminists haven't eliminated the official position altogether. Oh noes, we can't imply that women are hostesses and second to their husbands!
If it was purely symbolic, then why the amount of controversy surrounding Mrs. Obama?
I believe that the USA would survive without a first lady, but it looks like after next year's election we might have a first dude.:lol:
Carly Fiorina thanks you for that vote of confidence SN. :mrgreen:
Someone married her?
Yeah, and wasn't he a CEO or Big Wig of ATT?
If it was purely symbolic, then why the amount of controversy surrounding Mrs. Obama?
I have no idea why you're asking me this question. I also have no idea what controversy surrounds Mrs. Obama. She's completely inconsequential.
Because the office hasn't been symbolic for quite some time. She wasn't inconsequential. She was essentially the pillar for reforming school lunches.
. :mrgreen:Carly Fiorina thanks you for that vote of confidence SN
Oh, well reforming school lunches isn't a priority of mine. In fact, I'm not even interested in the subject. I never needed the help of the wife of a politician in DC to feed my kids or make sure my kids eat right. I always thought that was my responsibility as their mother. She can worry about her own kids and the kids of those who can't take care of them without her.
I'm not generally interested in agricultural issues, but I can recognize where they may get a push in priority from various offices of the government.
Education policy matters frequently get aired in the Office of the First Lady and they can become staples for the field.
Just because you're indifferent to it doesn't make it symbolic.
You are trying to get me to say that Michelle Obama isn't inconsequential. I won't. She's important to you. That's your prerogative. She, like Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush and Rosalyn Carter and so on, before her, is inconsequential. Hillary should have been but apparently played her husband's left brain and right ball.
Yeah, except you'd be wrong. They essentially serve as a means to coordinate interests of White House policy councils.
I don't think it's so much about needing anything as it is about recognizing the contribution of a spouse to one's success personally and otherwise and tapping into the spouse's demonstrated talent.
If it was purely symbolic, then why the amount of controversy surrounding Mrs. Obama?
Yeah, except you'd be wrong. They essentially serve as a means to coordinate interests of White House policy councils.