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.

 

US First Lady Michelle Obama Goes On $50,000 Lingerie Spending Spree

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 

While I am still trying to figure out if this is true or not..I will comment anyway..

I don't care what rich people do with their money..they can buy a pile of sh1t for all I care..they can have a bonfire and burn 100's...I don't care..but when he/she are our leaders and tell us to tighten our belts and eat our peas and every other stupid metaphor he can come up with to tell us we are in fact poor and things aren't getting better..you'd think they should show some self-control and tact.

Why don't they just say "look, we are filthy rich...we've earned it *cough*..we are gonna spend it however we see fit..while you poor mutha's suffer..sorry but life isn't fair" Don't tell us to tighten our belts like you are including yourself...just tell it like it is..




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
who cares what she buys, it's her money



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by MrCipher
 





If you have to go out of your way to illustrate a point like that, then it's only a reconfirmation that those people are totally disconnected from the real world and do not share the public's interests or concerns.


However, they are just as much of "people" as us. First off, there really is no shared public interest and concerns anyway. We all are different.

And what do you mean disconnected from the real world? Which real would are you talking about? Starving tribes in Africa? Religiously oppressed citizens? They would say you were disconnected from the real world.

But you are not, cause everyone has their own "real world".

Define Real World?
edit on 30-1-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)


I see what you're saying. I suppose they are people. But with as much money as they have and the lifestyle they are used to living, do you believe that they understand the frustration and suffering people are going through right now? Do you think that they think about others wondering where their next meal is coming from or where they are going to sleep tonight because they can't find work?

I completely realize that I don't have it "that bad" as the examples that you're offering. I am in an apartment, on a computer with lights, air conditioning and running water. I have food in the fridge.

I guess the whole thing is in bad taste when it's considered "news". Maybe that's not the Obamas' fault directly but they certainly didn't ask the media to not make a big deal out of this. So to me that says that Mrs. Obama wanted the media, and by extension Americans in general, to know she spent a ludicrous amount of money on sexy underwear.

Will that 50k help feed people? Maybe. It may also strengthen those who already have a nice lifestyle to live slightly better. And that's the disconnect. As I said before, it seems that monies passed around by the rich, except for charity donations, affect their little cadre of peers and servants more often than it does any good for the population as a whole.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
So what "let them eat cake"



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by mileysubet
 


It wasn't that she spent tax payer money on the lingerie, it was because tax payer money was used to close of the area. Now if it was only 50k to keep her safe, I can see that as SS isn't cheap.

Now don't get me wrong, I can't stand the lady and feel she is emotionally disconnected from reality. I do not want any harm to come to the POTUS wife or anyone else for that matter.

Ok so I read the article, please don't flame, the above was only from reading the op, I still feel they should be safe.

Yeah 50k seems excessive, however its not clear on how much she spent as opposed to the sheik lady.

I never saw the appeal to lingerie anyways, women look better without that stuff.
edit on 30-1-2012 by calnorak because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thurisaz
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


well something is very wrong in the bedroom if she has to spend that amount of taxpayers money on lingerie! !




edit on 30/1/2012 by Thurisaz because:




Really?...or something is (very right) in the bedroom...and she knows how to keep her man interested!



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Honestly, if the money she spent was her own money.. who cares about this. If tax payer money was used in any way (to close off the street..etc..) then I would have a huge problem. People who earn their own money (or their spouse) can spend that money however they want.

However it is tactless for her to be the first lady and spend that much on underwear while our country's economy is going to hell with the help of her husband though. If she was just another rich person it wouldn't be bad, but she is suppose to behave with class and dignity.. like the wife of a POTUS should.
edit on 1/30/2012 by Drezden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thurisaz
reply to post by mileysubet
 


yeah, whatever. Are you a Defense Attorney or a PR Shill?

Wake up! There are people in her own Country that can't even afford housing or food!!



edit on 30-1-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


They were both lawyers and Obama has a book that sold millions of copies.

If she spent her own money that she earned, who cares? More class warfare even on ATS

edit on 1/30/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
She was only trying to boost the economy and make her ugly butt attractive for her husband. What's the difference? Mrs. Obama spending hard earned tax payer dollars on some panties or Mr. Obama giving the clothing company a stimulus check for $50,000? Either way, they got PAID!!

Seems logical to me.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
anyone who spends $50,000 on underwear while there are hundreds of people dying and starving in D.C. deserves to be ... transplanted out of the white house and right next to one of the starving homeless that she turned her cheek to.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
to quote someones sig' on ats (sorry cant remember who's)...

"you cant pollish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter"



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal
anyone who spends $50,000 on underwear while there are hundreds of people dying and starving in D.C. deserves to be ... transplanted out of the white house and right next to one of the starving homeless that she turned her cheek to.


Spending your own money is wrong because some people dont have money?

BTW, she has done her fair share of charity. My, how quick ATS is to judge.
edit on 30-1-2012 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join