The First Family's Lifestyle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why was it okay for everyone to constantly make fun of GWB's big ears, and yet if someone made a comment about (for example) Obama's big lips....it would be considered racist?

What if an African American was commenting on GWB's big ears? Would that be racist?

You're so right. It's because rich white men are the only group it's okay to be racist against any more. This is why you never see rich white men as CEO positions, or as doctors, or politicians.

Or at least you wouldn't if they weren't so gosh-darn genetically superior.

[Anonymous]

True - the imbeciles on this thread who voted for Obama are the ones we should scrutinize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:True - the imbeciles on this thread who voted for Obama are the ones we should scrutinize.

See: resentful, angry, low-information voters are everywhere. It's not a race, class, or geographic thing.

[Anonymous]

If anyone's interested. This article describes their marriage and their humble beginnings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/magazine/01Obama-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[Anonymous]

Hmm, it's not anger. It's a response to a PP who said voters, not politicians, are to blame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Funny, there was a Gallup poll that was done a while back that showed that folks who self-identified as "Independent" were 99 times out of 100 simply Republicans. Embarrassed Republicans, one can imagine. "*I* am an Independent, but this Republican-bashing has got to stop!"

Whatever.

That's extremely close-minded. Do you really believe that people can't believe in social liberalism but fiscal conservatism? Do you think they are mutually exclusive? Actually, I am a Left-Wing Moderate if you want to get super-specific, but there's no box on my voter registration for that. That's an Independant. If you feel people can only fall into one category or another, that doesn't seem very Democratic of you. I'm shocked by the number of people who insist they are Democrats who are clearly not Democrats and actually have no idea what the word means. It does NOT mean "I support Gay Marraige" or "I vote Democrat in elections." It actually has a meaning. I was a registered Democrat until I actually learned what a Democrat is, now I don't feel I fit squarely into that category. I vote how I feel, both Democrat and Republican. I think we can all agree that candidates OFTEN don't fit their political party distinction. They run where they think they'll win. Our entire party system is out of whack and that's why I don't believe in our parties and I refuse to affiliate with one. I give up my right to vote in the MD primary for that reason. THAT's why I'm an Independant.

[Anonymous]

Do you know what I think comes across loud and clear in this thread, regardless of whether or not you are red, blue or purple? All of us are disillusioned by our current political system and fedup with candidates and presidents for that matter. Shredding each other is not going to fix the problem.

[Anonymous]

Independent voters favor Republican candidates but NOT 99% of the time. It's more like 45% Republican, 35% Democrat.

Read this, from Gallop's website:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141086/independent-voters-favor-gop-2010-election-tracking.aspx

[Anonymous]

Er, 11:25, last time I checked, U of C Hospital (Mrs. Obama's most recently held position) was a nonprofit entity, not a corporate one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm, it's not anger. It's a response to a PP who said voters, not politicians, are to blame.

You're kidding, right? Darn those predatory politicians, taking care of our honest, thoughtful, contemplative voters. I realize that it makes some folks feel better (and it certainly plays better back in the "home" districts), but those rapacious hypocritical assholes in Washington? They represent the good folks of Gopher Wallow, Indiana, or wherever it is. They send them here. They *own* them.

And they "represent" them in every sense of the word.

[Anonymous]

To 12:44 - nobody blinked when a not for profit paid her $375K a year (?!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 12:44 - nobody blinked when a not for profit paid her $375K a year (?!)

Generally a mid-size non-profit hospital (250-350 beds) in U.S.:
CEO $600,000-$900,000
other C-levels/EVPs $250,000-$350,000
VPs $160,000-$220,000
Directors $70,000 - $120,000

For-profit chains pay signficantly less, but may offer stock-options

PP must be one of those folks who confuse not-for-profit work with "charity work." God forbid not-for-profits manage to attract experienced talented employees.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter how far they go. The cost is in the security detail. Whether they go to Europe or back to his hometown in Hawaii or Chicago, the cost is basically the same.

The only thing that would save money is if he had a large ranch like Reagan/Bush so they had a compound that they could secure and go back to. But the Obamas don't have property like that.

[Anonymous]

"This article describes their marriage and their humble beginnings. "

"Humble" is a relative term.

[Anonymous]

To many envious posters here -- color you green for your mean/jealous views. The guy got elected by getting the most votes ... "to the victor...go the spoils"...