It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Has there ever been a First Lady

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: youandme

hehehe, oookkkay. And yettttt.... and then....

Not saying you are voting for them... BUT would you rather in 10 years explain how you chose to vote into office a woman who was known for her potty mouth and her truly perverted cheating husband?


edit on pm1031pmFri, 14 Oct 2016 14:36:34 -0500 by antar because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: youandme

hehehe, oookkkay.



I mean it. I watch my kids play video games and never let them say anything bad towards anyone.

The only reason you kids bully others is because you must be a bully. Mine aren't.

And wen i find other people, sometimes, many times full-grown adults bullying my kids, while I'm watching I will many times grab the headset and scold them for their poor behavior.

Although I know they themselves think it is normal, for a 30 year old to betrate and bully an 8-year-old. I know they are wrong.

And when I put them in place, aside from a few bullies who don't care who they tear and shread apart, most of them apologize for their online behavior.

If your kids are a part of this problem, as one parent to another. Your kids need to stop it and you need to do something about it.

Believe it or not kids listen to their parents, and refelct them. They are a reflection of how you behave.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: youandme

Ah shoot, lost the chance to guess your childrens ages...

Your post is exactly the same violent rhetoric with predisposed accusations that I am addressing here.

These people are not very much the same nor their vision for Americas future... please read their platforms and what they find most important for all Americans based on their choices:
www.diffen.com...
edit on pm1031pmFri, 14 Oct 2016 14:47:15 -0500 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: youandme

Ah shoot, lost the chance to guess your childrens ages...

Your post is exactly the same violent rhetoric with predisposed accusations that I am addressing here.


This is the infantile conduct I am referring to when dealing with many people online.

You for one do NOT know my children's ages. I haven't given them away.

And two, instead of acknowledging as one parent to another the truth of this behavior online, you deflect and defend yourself.

I won't do that. If I said anything to bully or offend you I apologize. That is not how communication should be.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: youandme

Right on and I accept your apology.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
Has there ever been a First Lady who uses her political position to further a partisan agenda for the incoming Nominee?


Yes. Lots. That's part of what they do. In general, though, they would do this work in women's groups (because heaven forbid that they speak before large gender and racially mixed audiences.) Mamie Eisenhower comes to mind, as does Eleanor Roosevelt and Lady Bird Johnson and Hillary Clinton herself.

You might enjoy reading the biographies of some of these women if you weren't around when they were at their most active.

Michelle Obama is setting the bar high for future First Wives. They're no longer decorations (though this action actually starts with Eleanor Roosevelt - I remember how shocked everyone was when Lady Bird Johnson came out with her various programs.)

In the future, expect them to take on a lot of the functions of noble wives across the globe; furthering their husbands' agendas and active in mentoring their successors and the spouses of their successors.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: youandme

You drove right by the off topic sign and put the petal to the metal towards insult-ville.

My problem with our first lady campaigning for a candidate has nothing to do with the ethics..they got tossed out the window along with the basket of deplorables...

What bothers me is all of our tax dollars are being used to transport and protect our president and the first lady as they campaign for a candidate.

I never knew it was legal to do that.

Respectfully,
~meathead



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
For anyone who may still be reading, this is the site I am hoping we can take a look at. The discussion has slipped off course a bit but some of the questions I posted in the OP may be answered in this cool site. I acknowledge that times have changed and so has the role of our First Ladies/Gentlemen but just how far should a current First Lady go to bring in a candidate that in all actuality represents very little of her and her Husbands platform? Should she be in fact morally judged for her choice of replacement none other than Ex POTUS Bill Clinton who has been impeached and found guilty of lewd and lascivious behavior while POTUS??? If he did all of that while in the highest position, as Commander in Chief, what might he do once back in the Oval Office?


www.firstladies.org...

edit on pm1031pmFri, 14 Oct 2016 14:57:57 -0500 by antar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Mike Stivic

Oh wow! have to say that hit me square between the eyes!!! Any bonafide links to that? I am not doubting just asking for more info on that one. The Debonair Deplorables are going to love that one. So much happening its not easy to stay up on all of it...



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mike Stivic
a reply to: youandme

You drove right by the off topic sign and put the petal to the metal towards insult-ville.

My problem with our first lady campaigning for a candidate has nothing to do with the ethics..they got tossed out the window along with the basket of deplorables...

What bothers me is all of our tax dollars are being used to transport and protect our president and the first lady as they campaign for a candidate.

I never knew it was legal to do that.

Respectfully,
~meathead


Sorry I'm not here to talk about the Presidential candidates. Just made some observations of my own about this whole situation.

But I won't be making judgement or taking sides.

In fact, I believe my comments were very insightful.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: antar

I have a notsosmart phone. I cannot link.
When our president makes an appearance ,or the first lady, I feel very confident in saying they are surrounded by an entourage of secret service without providing a link.

Transportation is implied by the previous sentence,you don't think they walk from the white house to the events ? Do you?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Yes I am aware of the active rolls which have been an important part of our countries history via our First Ladies. Many have contributed greatly to the development of otherwise pushed under the carpet subjects and programs.

I know that a Great First Lady plays an active roll in public affairs on a humanitarian level, yet not at all aware of them stepping in to advocate for the incoming POTUS as we have seen with Michelle. I quite frankly am surprised that she has done so full well knowing who she will be meeting with to swap First Wives Crowns and secrets. I just dont see them wanting anything to do with either Clinton.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: windword

1995-1996 Lewinski ... came to light 1998... Was in office from -January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Locker room banter illegally caught on tape by someone who had no aspirations to become POTUS.. 2005

My kids have said FAAARRR worse playing xbox live... I have to remind them often that I am "in the room"... they say far worse, really.


Okay, that was complete and total deflection from the question as to why POTUS can campaign for his party, but FLOTUS cannot.

There was no "locker room" banter, and it wasn't "illegally" caught on tape. One incident was an interview with Billy Bush for Access Hollywood and others were live radio interviews with Howard Stern, one was a Christmas Special being taped at Trump Towers, for Christ's sake!

If your kids are threatening to sexually assault another individual then I question your ability to be a role model and a parent yourself!
edit on 14-10-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: Byrd.
I know that a Great First Lady plays an active roll in public affairs on a humanitarian level, yet not at all aware of them stepping in to advocate for the incoming POTUS as we have seen with Michelle. I quite frankly am surprised that she has done so full well knowing who she will be meeting with to swap First Wives Crowns and secrets. I just dont see them wanting anything to do with either Clinton.


Well, Laura Bush did so for Mitt Romney awhile ago.

More recently, she campaigned for Jeb Bush

Two of many examples. And yes, taxpayer dollars provided her with airplanes and security at both these events. I actually got to see her security in person when I was a docent at a museum where she visited.

The fact that they do campaign for Clinton might tell you something about the quality of the accusations leveled against Clinton as well as the job she did as Secretary of State. Campaigning for her is not mandatory and many presidents have declined to campaign for nominees that they felt were wrong for the country or had poor character.
edit on 14-10-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It is wrong in my opinion for either a potus or flotus to campaign for any candidate on our tax dollars.

If Hillary is having an event and wants them there she should foot the bill.. Period.

Its not business of state, its not a presidential vacation...it is democrats using our tax dollars to promote their candidate..

Spin away...

respectfully,
~meathead



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Many if not most First ladies have been known to dedicate their positions to aid their husbands become elected. Done with grace and charity, not at the expense of Tax payers at a historic time in disastrous economic history to ring in the next candidate preceding their POTUS husbands.

www.firstladies.org... f=FORID%3A11%3BNB%3A1

I typed into the sites search engine:
first+ladies+contributions+to+political+campaigns
Search instead for first+ladies+contributions+to+political+campains
edit on pm1031pmFri, 14 Oct 2016 15:37:41 -0500 by antar because: link



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Byrd,
I have a lot of respect for you, I love your threads, I enjoy your devotion to research.
And appreciate it.

I am no fan of the bushes, in fact im not really a fan of bipartisan politics and the results they produce. It is to me divide and conquer tactics.

But,surely you do not believe two wrongs make a right?


With sincere Respect,
~ meathead



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: antar

We had a fist lady fight a war on drugs....



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: antar
a reply to: windword

1995-1996 Lewinski ... came to light 1998... Was in office from -January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001

Locker room banter illegally caught on tape by someone who had no aspirations to become POTUS.. 2005

My kids have said FAAARRR worse playing xbox live... I have to remind them often that I am "in the room"... they say far worse, really.


Far worse? So your kids brag about raping people and getting away with it? That's about the only thing worse than what Trump was bragging about. It's not vulgar language that's the problem, it's the actions he was describing himself as doing.

Also, Trump has had aspirations to become President since much earlier than 2005, he was the Reform Party nominee in 2000 and has talked about running in every election since the 80's.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Show me.

Others have asked many times if he planned to run and he only stated if the country continued to decline would he. He did not want it, but would step up for this country if he was the only option in a disaster scenario which we have pretty much made it to. But invite me to another discussion where these posts would be more appropriate!

edit on pm1031pmFri, 14 Oct 2016 15:41:27 -0500 by antar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join