• 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.

Every world power in history was built on the backs of slavery. Stop pretending America invented it. It was ugly, it was abolished, and now your pathetic party tries with all its might to keep the racial tensions churning, a la Trayvon Martin.

A)

I'm very much unlike you. I do not belong, nor do I pledge allegiance to any political party in this country, or any other for that matter.


B)

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of my Country, the Declaration of Independents upon which it was founded, and the resultant Constitution that binds it and holds it together, despite the attempts of many to separate it.

C)

The factoid that America did not usher into the world the concept of Slavery, did not make the Institution of American Slavery, any less immoral than it was. The fact that Slavery was abolished in the United States, makes its legacy no less impacting on the current American Psyche today. And, your post is a prime example of that sad, sorry, and awfully pitiful fact. Nor, did it make George Washington, a moral agent of honor, decency and integrity.

Those are the facts - like them, or not.
 
Yes, and I didn't create one.

Yes, you did.

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.

Everyone knows that deficit spending is unsustainable in the long run (except for Dick Cheney apparently). This has nothing to do with the fact that running a country is not the same as running a business, such as a private equity firm.
 
Personally, I think Obama did the honorable thing by declaring not only that professional Mothers deserve respect, but that the family is off limits.

Because that means Michelle Obama can't be criticized no matter what she says.
 
I would say that the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Isn't it funny, how truth just loves to hang out in that location. ;) Right smack in the middle - where it belongs. Where all Americans belong.
 
Because that means Michelle Obama can't be criticized no matter what she says.

There's a difference between legitimate criticism and a substanceless personal attack.

Saying "I have a problem with what Michelle is doing" is different from saying "She's an ugly horse-faced fat bitch with a huge donk." Personally, I don't view the fact that Ann Romney never worked a day in her life as particularly relevant to Mitt's ability to be a chief executive.
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between legitimate criticism and a substanceless personal attack.

Saying "I have a problem with what Michelle is doing" is different from saying "She's an ugly horse-faced fat bitch with a huge donk."

On this we agree. I just think if anyone of importance criticizes Michelle, the President will say, "Hey... I didn't like it when someone on the left did it to Ann Romney, so let's not do it to my wife either."
 
A)

I'm very much unlike you. I do not belong, nor do I pledge allegiance to any political party in this country, or any other for that matter.


B)

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of my Country, the Declaration of Independents upon which it was founded, and the resultant Constitution that binds it and holds it together, despite the attempts of many to separate it.

C)

The factoid that America did not usher into the world the concept of Slavery, did not make the Institution of American Slavery, any less immoral than it was. The fact that Slavery was abolished in the United States, makes its legacy no less impacting on the current American Psyche today. And, your post is a prime example of that sad, sorry, and awfully pitiful fact. Nor, did it make George Washington, a moral agent of honor, decency and integrity.

Those are the facts - like them, or not.

But you can't just plug yourself into those times with a 2012 perspective and make universal moral judgments like that.

A new nation has no currency other than labor. So how do you pay labor with no currency? Such is the problem with every fledgling nation. Slavery, especially that which is conducted as business by people who enslave their own people, is a solution, albeit an ugly one.

When you watch Al Sharpton, or the New Black Panthers, you can see how people are downgraded and categorized by race. It happened, it was fixed, and we move on.

Don't act like you would have thought differently. It's easy to throw darts from a big, rich nation 240 years later.
 
Why should Michelle Obama be fair game, but not Ann Romney?

As I said earlier in this thread, they should both be fair game.
 
Because that means Michelle Obama can't be criticized no matter what she says.

I don't think Madame Obama can be criticized for how she lived her life and the choices she made. What she says publicly is a different matter, the same holds true for Mrs. Romney. She isn't being criticized (in this instance) for what she has said, but rather for the perfectly honorable choices she has made.
 
As I said earlier in this thread, they should both be fair game.

Well, I disagree, I don't think either of them are fair game. Nothing they do has much bearing on how well their husbands either have been, or will be, President.

At least you're consistent, so I can respect that.
 
Yeah, the comment is valid if you take it for what it obviously meant to show - that Mrs. Romney hasn't had to juggle things most mothers have to which is working a job, particularly while raising children. However, if you want to make a big deal out of the comment, then you can latch onto the "but stay at home moms" work argument which completely misses the intent of the statement.

*FTR, I get a little perturbed when stay-at-home moms get self-righteous about doing a lot of work. I understand it's work to raise children, but it's even more work to raise children and have a job outside of the home so when people try to act like homemaking is the same level of work as full time job + raising kids, I think it's ridiculous.

I agree with that, because I have seen it play out in real life and on reality tv. Vicky Gunvalson, Realhousewife of OC, is one of the only working women on the show and she's the breadwinner in the family. She makes millions of dollars a year and takes the housewives on vacations with her. She has a lot of pride in her work and her success.

One day, she got attacked by a bunch of the other women for talking about all her hard work, because they are SAHMs and it's hard work too. The other wives live the same lifestyle but unlike Vicky, they didn't create it or earn all the money themselves, and that's the fact. Pointing that out, shouldn't be offensive.

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.
 
Well, I disagree, I don't think either of them are fair game. Nothing they do has much bearing on how well their husbands either have been, or will be, President.

At least you're consistent, so I can respect that.

They're on the campaign trails with their husbands. Anyone on the campaign trail is open for criticism (except children, of course).
 
I didn't say it wasn't smart. I pointed out how easily people fall for the faux outrage of politicians. I can't believe how many people are earnestly defending Mrs. Romney as if she gives a damn about this other than to make some money.

It is BS. It's like the **** they rolled out with Palin all the time, and the majority of women voted for Obama anyway. Palin under attack for... being a working mother with a special needs child, being asked gottcha questions, being a Christian, abstinence only mother, etc. etc. Romney has made the issue about his wife, and not about all women. This conversation isn't doing anything for me as a woman just as that "Palin is under attack" didn't either.

Ann isn't really under attack, nor was the comment that offensive. Hannity needs to calm the **** down. There actually more deplorable things to say about Ann Romney than, "she hasn't worked a day in her life."
 
Yeah, the comment is valid if you take it for what it obviously meant to show - that Mrs. Romney hasn't had to juggle things most mothers have to which is working a job, particularly while raising children. However, if you want to make a big deal out of the comment, then you can latch onto the "but stay at home moms" work argument which completely misses the intent of the statement.

*FTR, I get a little perturbed when stay-at-home moms get self-righteous about doing a lot of work. I understand it's work to raise children, but it's even more work to raise children and have a job outside of the home so when people try to act like homemaking is the same level of work as full time job + raising kids, I think it's ridiculous.

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."
 
Michelle Obumble is fair game. She has been an advocate of her husband's failed administration. Now, the kids are off limits. I was PISSED when people made fun of Chelsea Clinton; SS agents I know always said she was a delightful and polite young lady. And while she was not beautiful (hardly her fault) she was always neat and she was in great shape.

Why would Michelle Obama be fair game, but not Ann Romney?

I don't think either are, I don't care how they advocate for their husbands. I also thought it was terribly wrong to attack Sarah Palin's family, regardless of the fact they were on the campaign trail with her. Families should be out of bounds. They are not running for the office. President Obama said so in 2008 and reiterated it yesterday, "leave wives out of it".
 
Am I in the minority for thinking Chelsea Clinton is at least somewhat attractive?
 
They're on the campaign trails with their husbands. Anyone on the campaign trail is open for criticism (except children, of course).

At least the criticism should be accurate. Ann Romeny has enough medical problems that anyone in her shoes with less net worth would be drawing disability on our dime to stay at home and "not work a day in her life" with her kids.
 
I don't think Madame Obama can be criticized for how she lived her life and the choices she made. What she says publicly is a different matter, the same holds true for Mrs. Romney. She isn't being criticized (in this instance) for what she has said, but rather for the perfectly honorable choices she has made.
Actually, in this case, she's being criticized for her husband's attempt to make her look like the everyday woman when she isn't. If you or your candidate husband presents an image of yourself, then I think people have the right to criticize that image if they think it's a lie. For example, MO has taken on healthy living as her cause and thus presents herself as a healthy person. If she were 300 pounds, then I think it would be reasonable for people to question her image.
 
Actually, in this case, she's being criticized for her husband's attempt to make her look like the everyday woman when she isn't. If you or your candidate husband presents an image of yourself, then I think people have the right to criticize that image if they think it's a lie. For example, MO has taken on healthy living as her cause and thus presents herself as a healthy person. If she were 300 pounds, then I think it would be reasonable for people to question her image.

Ok, but is "hasn't worked a day in her life" an accurate statement?
 
Back
Top Bottom