http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/16/su … lle-obama/
It never ends with these people...they use junk science to support their lies under the guise of doing something good for the people... then they hold press conferences touting how wonderful they are for doing these things but don't allow questions! And the pres...well they just take it all in and do what's expected of them... promote the nanny state!
"right-thinking mom Sarah Palin: "
Ah, another balanced and none partisan article LL.
Oh is it partisan because it reports the truth... or because it doesn't confirm your own liberal views? Lol
No, because it can describe Sarah Palin as right thinking!
She is right thinking! You're just showing your own bias in not acknowledging the truth!
A politician speaks truth? What a joke.
So you're the arbiter of truth and you've decided that you and only you know the truth "there is no truth but LadyLoves truth"!
No im not the only one that knows the truth lots of people do... even liberals.... but liberals don't admit it if it is at odds with their socialist agenda.
Liberals with their socialist agenda! What are you on? Liberals are not socialists!
And yet you reckon you can see the truth where others who don't share your prejudices can't!
It's hopeless to try to get R's to see that Bush got our country involved in 2 wars. I see no way either of them can be "won" or what would even be considered "winning" in either situation. Many people are dead for oil, and we have created thousands of young Osama Bin Ladins. The budget was balanced when Clinton handed over the presidency to Bush, who ruined it, and made our country the laughing stock of the world. Obama has tried to fix that, and now has all these problems to solve. He needs to choose better people to surround him and advise him. R's are organized, they believe and spread lies, and will do anything to tow the party line. Worst of all, they believe all the lying and sneaky crap they spew.
What nonsense! Of course Bush lead us into 2 wars! We can argue whether or not they were justified and how they should have been fought but its ridiculous to say they were for oil! Where's the oil? Ir for that matter where is our payments for bringing freedom to those people? It seems China got the oil so is that what we fought for?
Too much government is too much government. The simple fact that government is involved in too many decisions about people's life, is just utterly ridiculous.
Yeppers.....that's right. And it's controlling, which is not cool.
@Cagsil I totally agree with you, the government sticks its nose in so many places in people's life, where it has no business!
There are no liberals' or 'conservatives' I believe only haters and non-haters exist in America. All politicians spread lies.
LL158, yeah, you are non-partisan like a mortgage banker telling you to sign here. your title word usage says it all. Keep on pushin Rush, the hockey Mom, Reaganomics, and the Bush family war economy. That'll work wonders. Don't just post anything to divide a country and keep it weak. Interesting how many find the best President's throughout the 20th century were dems (except Carter). Nobody is mentioning republicans except for one, Ronnie who I respect. Regarding agenda, Republicans simply slip it through and we seem to pay for it later. Don't ever forget the worst Presidency ever, George W Bush's lies and spending were the absolutely worst in history. No wonder he has no speaking engagements, Nobody wants him.
The only one worse than Bush as far as lies was Clinton and Obama and for spending Obama has him beat hands down... if fact Obama has spent more than every president in history combined! I think Obama will take the worst president prize from Carted with ease!
But I've already shown you that Obama has not spent more than every president in history combined. Or do you think if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth?
No you didnt!! You asked me to prove it. I asked you to do your own research... so where is it where's the liberal spin?
Okay, I have a problem with this statement, simply because, the expenses being poured out nowadays, compared to the entire expenditure of what was spent during the History of America, actually said that Obama is spending more money or will spend more money than America ever spent.
By the time Obama is done, the National Debt of the Nation will be more than double was it was when he took office. So, your argument is easily refuted.
So, refute it then!
Saying the National debt will be more than double does not prove LLs contention that he will have spent more than all other presidents put together.
Don't forget that the national debt was over 80% of GDP when he took over, the highest since WWII
Man, do the math yourself, I'm not your teacher and had I been, I would still tell you to do the research yourself. How sad for you that you cannot even see the amount of spending presently going on is going to do what I said it was going to do.
The National Debt has done nothing but rise, and it's also unfortunate for you that you're not paying attention to other things that go into the TOTAL debt America has racked up.
Social security, medicare and medicaid, do add to the TOTAL debt of this Nation, and anyone willing to say it doesn't, doesn't have a clue about the debt incurred by this Nation.
The debt for this Nation was about 3 to 4 trillion, roughly at the turn of the century, yet we are now at 11 or 12 trillion. And, when Obama is done with his actions in office, it is more likely to be 20 trillion, if things are not managed better.
By the way, it's ignorance that many people have about the debt of this Nation- think about just for a second- Medicaid and Medicare is in debt to about 48 Trillion dollars...who do you suppose is going to pay that debt down?
Lol! That's the same thing I told him Cags! Liberals hate the truth sooo much they simply refuse to seek it out! Even if you did all the work for him ( something liberals prefer) he would only criticise it as being wrong or a lie! Lol
On the contrary, it's you who refuses to see the truth, I've provided you with facts, you've provided me with supposition.
And how many times do you need telling I'm not a Liberal?
You don't want truth, you don't care about the truth just the opportunity to slander people!
I have done the math myself!
Remember that when Bush came to power debt was about 30% of GDP, when he left it was well over 80%, Now it is a little over 100%.
And you expect me to believe that a rise from 30% to over 80% is less than a rise from over 80% to over 100%.
Hey, I'm not disputing that the debt exists and that it has only been higher during WWII, but spent more than all other presidents put together, jeez, oh by the way, he didn't inherit a zero debt, he inherited an 80+% debt.
But there again, I'm not your teacher and if you choose to believe, well, that's your problem
And, I have already shown Lady the evidence that rather than spending more than every other president combined, Obama's spend is no more than about 18 months of Bushes spending.
So drop the patronising OK and keep to the facts.
Three words for you: Consider the Source.
Here is the opening line of Michelle Malkin's "About" section of her website (source of your link):
I’m a mother, wife, blogger, conservative syndicated columnist, author, and Fox News Channel contributor.
No bias there, eh?
With that one sentence her credibility is completely shot.
Oh, and the use of the words "junk science" -- there are many, many studies that support the health benefits of breastfeeding. There are many studies linking diseases (diabetes, high blood pressure) to obesity.
If it's such a liberal conspiracy, how do you (or how does Ms. Malkin) explain the programs health care providers recommend to their patients? Are all doctors liberals?
I read the whole article and have to point out an obvious irony.
Ms. Malkin is railing against giving tax credits to working mothers for breast pumps!! Rather anti-woman, don't you think? So every mother should stay home with her children, is that the "family values" way of life?
I would think that the righties would be supportive of women who work rather than collecting welfare. But apparently not.
Take off your liberal blunders for a moment... Malkin cited several studies that dispute a link to obesity but of course you would have had to read the piece instead of dismissing it out of hand. You would have also learned she is in favor of breast feeding, has breast feed both of her children and doesn't even object to Michelle promoting breast feeding. You would have also found out that 75% of women breast feed their babies already but in the black community its considerably less... you might have read how the IRS considered a tax deduction for breast pumps and dismissed it but suddenly reversed themselves since Michelle got involved... now what about the poor women that can't breast feed and have to spend a fortune on formula...why are they being discriminated against?
My liberal blunders
Yes, LaLo. I did read the article.
Malkin's premise is that Michelle Obama is saying not breastfeeding your babies is "the" cause of childhood obesity. She is NOT saying that. There are many causes of childhood obesity and Michelle Obama is working on a multi-pronged campaign to reduce childhood obesity.
Whether or not you believe the studies that say breastfed babies are healther (and less prone to obesity), it makes sense to support mothers who want to breastfeed their children, doesn't it? Making workplaces and public spaces "breastfeeding-friendly" is trying to right a discrimination that should not exist. Giving women a tax credit for breast pumps is one incentive to help working women. Hello? Pro-capitalism!
Your argument: "What about the poor women who can't breastfeed and have to spend a fortune on formula -- why are they being discriminated against..."
Let's follow your argument to is logical conclusion.
What about the poor women who can't have children at all? Why are they being discriminated against?
What about the poor women who become pregnant and can't afford to have or keep their baby? Why is the right discriminating against them??
I'm sorry, but this whole line of thinking is absurd.
Michelle Obama sees a very real problem in this country. Our people are too fat. Our children are too fat.
She is working to reduce the incidence of childhood obesity.
And you twist that around to say Mrs. Obama is discriminating against non-breastfeeding mothers.
I don't know what kind of hallucinogens you and your pal Michelle Malkin are ingesting, but they sure are potent
Mighty Mom - face it, no matter what Michelle Obama says or does, the Repubnics will attack her. They had a fit when she planted an organic vegetable garden at the White House. They had a fit when she suggested healthier school lunches. If she came up with a recipe for World Peace they'd still hate her.
I wonder why?
So the F what?
You don't need studies -- flawed or otherwise -- to know that we are a nation of fat slobs raising fat DUMB slob kids.
That is absolutely indefensible and it is preventable.
As per usual, the right takes a positive idea and focuses in on one microissue, twists it around and turns that into their "proof" that positive idea is bad.
The tactic is predictable.
Dolores -- Lol. Of course they would. If she were to come up with a recipe for World Peace she would either be lambasted for trying to shove World Peace down our throats or lambasted as a hypocrite because her recipe has too much grease, salt and sugar (see White House Super Bowl Party thread for reference).
Okay so kids are fat then why not give tax deductions to supermarkts that don't sell food? That would at least be more effective than. Michelles plan! Lol
I like the idea of buying my automotive parts at one of these supermarkets that dont sell food. Why not just call them auto parts stores and save the tax break. There is a possibility that this could have been a typo but considering some of your past arguements I dont know for sure.
BTW, thanks for at least admitting that there are fat kids in this country. Baby steps lady, baby steps. Maybe soon you can think like a big person. Next step is turning off the faux news. You can do it.
I first got upset with Michelle Obama when she said this:
And then when she said this:
That old "piece of pie" chestnut really gets my goat. Like there's just one limited pie in the whole universe that the hard working pigs among us have managed to grab and keep from the morally superior people who don't know how to or don't want to make a living. Life ain't fair. My prescription? Try, try again.
And then she said this. . . .
. . . .and I decided the lady was a tyrannical left wing lunatic.
And it turns out I was right.
Oh. And a hypocrite.
Here's a photo of a bottle of the special home-made microbrew White House Honey Ale that President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama served tonight during their annual Super Bowl party...
Brewed with one pound of honey from this year's 160-pound harvest from the White House Bee Hive, the Ale was made by an unnamed White House chef who is a home-brewing enthusiast. The President, First Lady, and their guests sampled the special suds for the first time this evening. The label on the bottle reads "Brewed With White House Honey."
To go with the Ale, the Obamas served a menu that highlighted regional favorites from both Packer and Steeler countries--er, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania:
*Deep Dish Pizza
*German Potato Salad
*Twice Baked Potatoes
*Snyders Potato Chips and Pretzels
*Chips and Dips
That suggestion makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
But leave it to you to come up with a cockamamie capitalist solution that rewards business but does absolutely nothing to address the problem.
Why not give tax deductions to scale companies to make scales that automatically deduct 10lbs?
Why not give tax deductions to McDonalds and other fast food companies that don't sell high fat, high calorie and high sugar non-food, too?
Why not give tax deductions to clothing companies that only make clothing up to size 4?
I mean really...
Lol! That was the point! Actually all of your suggestions make as much sense as Michelle's and would probably be as effective! I have no doubt if Michelle suggested any of them you'd think them a good idea as long as thy were made with the phony compassion liberals are so good at feigning!
Perhaps Michelle Obama, like her husband, was against our invading Iraq. Perhaps she, like many of us, was absolutely sickened and appalled at how President Bush (Jr.) conducted himself with other world leaders. Perhaps she was distressed seeing the decline in our country's educational output.
That remark may seem harsh, but it's honest.
She didn't drink the American "exceptionalism" koolaid.
And she's right. America CAN do better.
As for her comment on healthcare and education -- she's absolutely right. She is recognizing that we don't have unlimited resources. She recognizes that in order to put more emphasis on these areas the funding has to come out of somewhere else. Given the biggest federal pie slices are defense, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, plus safety net funding -- maybe we can slice some of these a little thinner.
Finally, Michelle Obama is a hypocrite because of the Super Bowl party menu served at the White House. That accusation as been discussed to death already -- right here on the forums.
And so they make honey beer? So what? Unless they are serving it to obese children, where is the friggin hypocrisy in that???
by lady_love158 9 years ago
Just unbelievable!!! This is the first lady of America and she invites the rapper "Common" to the White House poetry event? This piece of garbage raps.about killing cops and burning Bush!! Now that's what I call a great roll model for young kids endorsed by lady Michelle!!! What an...
by Jack Lee 19 months ago
Latest poll shows Michelle Obama is the most admired women in the US.If that is the case, she would make the best candidate for president instead of the current 20+ contenders...
by lady_love158 10 years ago
Here is the menu to the White House Super Bowl party! Lol no vegtables here!http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … bowl-menu/As usual with democrats its do as I say not as I do!
by Dexter Yarbrough 9 years ago
Does Michelle Obama exemplify positive characteristics of a First Lady of the United States?Politics and personal ideology aside, do you think Michelle Obama has presented a good image and positive characteristics as First Lady of the United States?
by Maria Sol 7 years ago
Michelle Obama as an Oscar presenter - Your thoughts?There has been a flurry of criticism from the right, as would be expected, and surprisingly also from some in the left, on the First Lady's appearance as a presenter for the Best Film Oscar. What are your feelings on the matter? Is it...
by Susan Reid 6 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows differences in the brains of liberals vs. conservatives!What do YOU think about Ms....
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|