Guess who is gracing Vogue for the second time?

[Anonymous]

Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

[Anonymous]

What exactly is a "socialistic world view" and how does she (despite the fact she isnt president) want to fundamentally want to change the country?

Can you provide details on the specific policies they want to enact that show this? I want to understand this without all the lame talking points. Give me details.

[Anonymous]

Obama stated to the plumber that he wants to redistribute the wealth. I call that socialism.

[Anonymous]

So she was the child of a water plant employee and a secretary, went to Princeton and graduated cum laude, then to Harvard Law School and to Sidley Austin. That's a success story by anyone's measure. Then she worked for Chicago's city government, became a Dean at University of Chicago, and then as an executive director for the University of Chicago Hospital system, where she earned $273K in 2006. She then became the first African American First Lady in the country's history and now has a popularity rating of 65% according to a recent poll.

Have you read what she did at UChicago? Her salary doubled when her husband became a US Senator. She developed a patient dumping scheme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

Please, all sane people, there is zero to be gained from engaging this PP. She/he is an ideologue, spouting talking points straight out of the mouth of Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. No matter how many facts, corrections to misinformation, realities you present to this person, they will not hear you. There is a reason that Fox News viewers are shown to be the most misinformed of ACTUAL FACTS in study after study. This person is in the bubble, and trying to having a rational conversation with someone like this is pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly is a "socialistic world view" and how does she (despite the fact she isnt president) want to fundamentally want to change the country?

Can you provide details on the specific policies they want to enact that show this? I want to understand this without all the lame talking points. Give me details.

Spread the wealth, baby. The rich need to pay more; they are not paying their fair share. Etc.

Forward!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

Please, all sane people, there is zero to be gained from engaging this PP. She/he is an ideologue, spouting talking points straight out of the mouth of Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. No matter how many facts, corrections to misinformation, realities you present to this person, they will not hear you. There is a reason that Fox News viewers are shown to be the most misinformed of ACTUAL FACTS in study after study. This person is in the bubble, and trying to having a rational conversation with someone like this is pointless.

Ah, the liberal argument. Lololol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Obama stated to the plumber that he wants to redistribute the wealth. I call that socialism.

They'll tell you Joe was an idiot, Obama was trapped, or Obama misspoke....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So she was the child of a water plant employee and a secretary, went to Princeton and graduated cum laude, then to Harvard Law School and to Sidley Austin. That's a success story by anyone's measure. Then she worked for Chicago's city government, became a Dean at University of Chicago, and then as an executive director for the University of Chicago Hospital system, where she earned $273K in 2006. She then became the first African American First Lady in the country's history and now has a popularity rating of 65% according to a recent poll.

Have you read what she did at UChicago? Her salary doubled when her husband became a US Senator. She developed a patient dumping scheme.

Facts Smacks. These folk will now call you racist because you are correct

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

NP. I don't agree with what *I* thought in college, much less what other people thought in college.

If you're going to say that Mrs. Obama has taken an unconstitutional sance on issue, please point to the issue. If you are talking about tax rates, a high tax rate is not unconstitutional, BTW. The Constitution doesn't have a single rule that prohibits taxation into the 95% range if the political arms of the government and the people deem it necessary. There is no economic due process in the US Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

Please, all sane people, there is zero to be gained from engaging this PP. She/he is an ideologue, spouting talking points straight out of the mouth of Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. No matter how many facts, corrections to misinformation, realities you present to this person, they will not hear you. There is a reason that Fox News viewers are shown to be the most misinformed of ACTUAL FACTS in study after study. This person is in the bubble, and trying to having a rational conversation with someone like this is pointless.

Ah, the liberal argument. Lololol

Wow - this is funny enough for not just an "lol" but an "lololol"? It's not the liberal argument but just the truth regarding trying to have a discussion with someone that isn't open to actually sharing ideas and reason, but is instead just going to spout talking points they heard from the great brain-trust that is the right wing media. Also, it is true that there have been numerous independent studies regarding Fox News viewers being the most uninformed, or more accurately misinformed. Maybe you should stop all your lolololing and try thinking based on rational thought and not the festival of ignorance you are currently following.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

Please, all sane people, there is zero to be gained from engaging this PP. She/he is an ideologue, spouting talking points straight out of the mouth of Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. No matter how many facts, corrections to misinformation, realities you present to this person, they will not hear you. There is a reason that Fox News viewers are shown to be the most misinformed of ACTUAL FACTS in study after study. This person is in the bubble, and trying to having a rational conversation with someone like this is pointless.

Ah, the liberal argument. Lololol

Wow - this is funny enough for not just an "lol" but an "lololol"? It's not the liberal argument but just the truth regarding trying to have a discussion with someone that isn't open to actually sharing ideas and reason, but is instead just going to spout talking points they heard from the great brain-trust that is the right wing media. Also, it is true that there have been numerous independent studies regarding Fox News viewers being the most uninformed, or more accurately misinformed. Maybe you should stop all your lolololing and try thinking based on rational thought and not the festival of ignorance you are currently following.

I laughed because you said nothing of substance, only accusations. And still are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

NP. I don't agree with what *I* thought in college, much less what other people thought in college.

If you're going to say that Mrs. Obama has taken an unconstitutional sance on issue, please point to the issue. If you are talking about tax rates, a high tax rate is not unconstitutional, BTW. The Constitution doesn't have a single rule that prohibits taxation into the 95% range if the political arms of the government and the people deem it necessary. There is no economic due process in the US Constitution.

It's not about the Constitutional right to tax, it's about the demonization of particular groups of people, ie implying the rich are deliberately not paying their fair share. And if you want to fundamentally change a country, then you don't respect it or its document of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

Please, all sane people, there is zero to be gained from engaging this PP. She/he is an ideologue, spouting talking points straight out of the mouth of Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. No matter how many facts, corrections to misinformation, realities you present to this person, they will not hear you. There is a reason that Fox News viewers are shown to be the most misinformed of ACTUAL FACTS in study after study. This person is in the bubble, and trying to having a rational conversation with someone like this is pointless.

Ah, the liberal argument. Lololol

Wow - this is funny enough for not just an "lol" but an "lololol"? It's not the liberal argument but just the truth regarding trying to have a discussion with someone that isn't open to actually sharing ideas and reason, but is instead just going to spout talking points they heard from the great brain-trust that is the right wing media. Also, it is true that there have been numerous independent studies regarding Fox News viewers being the most uninformed, or more accurately misinformed. Maybe you should stop all your lolololing and try thinking based on rational thought and not the festival of ignorance you are currently following.

I laughed because you said nothing of substance, only accusations. And still are

Well, since I wasn't talking to you, I didn't feel the need to actually counter your lies with anything. I was actually addressing the people that would be wasting their time providing you with facts since it was clear from your (and others) previous statements, that trying to have a discussion with someone like you is pointless. There can certainly be real, honest discussions between progressive and conservative thinkers, but not with far right ideologues, because any fact you are presented with that doesn't fit your predetermined narrative is ignored or dismissed or countered with wildly outlandish shit (Birthers anyone? Sandy Hook conspiracy perpetuators? Just gross lies.). There is nothing to be gained and so much time lost when arguing truth against your parade of propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at her college writings. I don't respect what she says - and it reflects the chip she has on her shoulder. That chip does undermine her because you really can't take much seriously from someone who has an axe to grind.

She has a socialistic world view, i.e. the rich are taking from the poor. She wants social justice for us, yet continues to live the life of those she disparages. She does not respect the Constitution, nor does her husband.

It's not about controversial, it's about wanting to 'fundamentally change' a country by circumventing the laws of the land.

Please, all sane people, there is zero to be gained from engaging this PP. She/he is an ideologue, spouting talking points straight out of the mouth of Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc. No matter how many facts, corrections to misinformation, realities you present to this person, they will not hear you. There is a reason that Fox News viewers are shown to be the most misinformed of ACTUAL FACTS in study after study. This person is in the bubble, and trying to having a rational conversation with someone like this is pointless.

Ah, the liberal argument. Lololol

Ah, the typical conservative deflection. Well done. LOLOLOL.