Originally posted by FlyersFan
Why the need to take up any?
You seem upset and I think you are wrong but I am willing to give this a chance.
But if they feel the need to take one up .. how about one that does not talk down to us and doesn't preach to us
Nancy Reagan = Drugs are bad for you.
Laura Bush = Reading is good for you.
Who the F do they think they are talking down to me?????
Oh, I bet they were talking to specific people. Do you think most Americans are in good shape and eat well?
This is something we can check into.
So please explain to me what I am missing there.
and doesn't invade our privacy?
Seriously, what is invading privacy about this?
To Nancy Reagan .. it's none of your business if someone wants to light up a joint. To Michele Obama .. it's none of your business if a
grown up wants to eat a bag of Lays Potato Chips.
And to Laura Bush, if someone wants to not know how to read, that is none of her business either.
Why should the first lady of the US even give a thought to whether or not she lives in a country full of illiterate slobs that are too stoned and fat
do do anything? It is not like it is a drain on resources or anything.
What business is it of Woodrow Wilson's wife if people live in crappy houses?
Who is Lady Bird Johnson to tell me to plant a garden????
Why should Rose Carter care if crazy people get help?
Yeah, these are all pretty stupid things to get upset about. Kind of like getting upset over Michelle Obama not wanting to see a bunch of diabetes
riddled fat kids going on to be the short, weesey, future of America.
It is none of her business. Now do you think she is going to be at the cash register telling you what you can and cannot buy?
She isn't paying for the internet site she's using to pontificate to us all.
Guess who is? TAXPAYERS
And the staff .. who REALLY wrote all that 'advice' ...
Guess who is paying for that? TAXPAYERS
I am curious what it cost and where you got your information.
She does have money.
My tax money is covering the costs for the FLOTUS to give 'shopping lessons' to grown ups .. telling us not to eat potato chips or drink soda
or whatever. It's obnoxious. If she wants a 'cause' then find something not invasive and not something where she 'talks down' to people. If
she's still hell-bent on insinuating herself into the eating habits of Americans, she can try to get more grocery stores with into inner cities
instead of this 'grocery shopping lesson' nonsense.
Her cause is chidlhood
What is invasive about this?
I really do think someone has to try and put tons of extra effort into being this kind of upset over something so stupid.