Diamonds for Michelle Obama

By Fresh
in Real World News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
I think the point is it's kind of ironic that his campaign focused a bit on how many houses or cars he owns (as did the media).

Hell, one of the biggest things on Sarah Palin was her wardrobe cost that the Republicans spent for her, with the media saying it was insensitive given the current economic climate in America. But now Obama gets a free pass?

I voted for Obama, I'm just saying, had this happened during the campaign it would've been a crap storm.

I doubt it. Reports came out on the cost of Cindy McCain's attire and jewelry during the RNC, and it never really made headway like the Palin stuff because it wasn't funded with campaign money.

The terrorist and socialism jibs were more polarizing than a piece of jewelry anyway.

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted
I doubt it. Reports came out on the cost of Cindy McCain's attire and jewelry during the RNC, and it never really made headway like the Palin stuff because it wasn't funded with campaign money.

The terrorist and socialism jibs were more polarizing than a piece of jewelry anyway.

Really?

So John McCain's houses and cars weren't discussed during the campaign at all? They were just minor points, even though it's his own personal money? John Edwards wasn't ridiculed for his $400 haircut, even though it was with his own personal money?

I like Obama, but I really don't like how journalists give him a free pass where they would ridicule others.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Really?

So John McCain's houses and cars weren't discussed during the campaign at all? They were just minor points, even though it's his own personal money? John Edwards wasn't ridiculed for his $400 haircut, even though it was with his own personal money?

I like Obama, but I really don't like how journalists give him a free pass where they would ridicule others.

Where did I say it wasn't discussed at all? I said those talking points aren't a very effective attack, compared to saying Obama is a socialist palling around with terrorists.

McCain didn't lose because of the amount of cars and houses he owned or Edwards because of his $400 haircut.

Grand Master

LTD

Posted
Posted
A guy buys an expensive ring for his wife.

OMG WOW!!11!!!11

Just to clarify, this wasn't directed negatively at HUM.

I do like these articles. They illustrate some of what's wrong with our society.

HUM just reports them. Always fun, though!

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted
Where did I say it wasn't discussed at all? I said those talking points aren't a very effective attack, compared to saying Obama is a socialist palling around with terrorists.

McCain didn't lose because of the amount of cars and houses he owned or Edwards because of his $400 haircut.

Where did I say he lost because of those issues? All I said was it's crazy how the media spares Obama.

Here's what you said: "I doubt it. Reports came out on the cost of Cindy McCain's attire and jewelry during the RNC, and it never really made headway like the Palin stuff because it wasn't funded with campaign money."

You doubted that the issue would be discussed at all during the campaign, yet similar issues -- when they were for McCain -- were discussed to epic proportions. I was using a hyperbole when I said they weren't discussed at all. It was sarcasm.

If you think these issues aren't a very effective attack, how on earth do you think calling him a socialist or saying he "pals around with terrorists" are effective attacks?

Again: all I'm saying is it's ridiculous how much of a free ride Obama gets in the media. It's rather annoying, actually. They need to report things more fairly. The socialist remarks never gained any credence in the media (and for good reason!), yet they ran with the insensitivity of the McCain campaign for many of his economic choices. Same with John Edwards. How should that play any role in the election process?

Grand Master

Rigby

Posted
Posted
think you'll find that it's exactly the nonsense that obama and his crowd have been spewing.

stop being such a simpleton.

So far you're the only person I've seen say that. Troll much?

In any case, what does it have to do with him buying his wife an expensive present? What, wealthy people are incapable of understanding the problems of poor people? What exactly is your problem here?

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Where did I say he lost because of those issues? All I said was it's crazy how the media spares Obama.

Here's what you said: "I doubt it. Reports came out on the cost of Cindy McCain's attire and jewelry during the RNC, and it never really made headway like the Palin stuff because it wasn't funded with campaign money."

You doubted that the issue would be discussed at all during the campaign, yet similar issues -- when they were for McCain -- were discussed to epic proportions. I was using a hyperbole when I said they weren't discussed at all. It was sarcasm.

If you think these issues aren't a very effective attack, how on earth do you think calling him a socialist or saying he "pals around with terrorists" are effective attacks?

Again: all I'm saying is it's ridiculous how much of a free ride Obama gets in the media. It's rather annoying, actually. They need to report things more fairly. The socialist remarks never gained any credence in the media (and for good reason!), yet they ran with the insensitivity of the McCain campaign for many of his economic choices. Same with John Edwards. How should that play any role in the election process?

I said I doubted it would make headway, just like the cindy mccain reports didn't.

Sarcasm doesn't translate well into text.

You act like Obama didn't get any flack from the media in the campaign? Seriously? Flag pin issue? Won't say pledge of allegiance? Rev Wright? Ayers? Spreading the wealth?

The socialist and terrorism attacks were very effective here in Georgia. That's all I saw from people on Facebook the night of the election. (and from republicans here in the forums)

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

Sarcasm translates very well when there is an obvious hyperbole, as I gave you:

Really?

So John McCain's houses and cars weren't discussed during the campaign at all? They were just minor points, even though it's his own personal money? John Edwards wasn't ridiculed for his $400 haircut, even though it was with his own personal money?

Pretty sure that's obviously sarcastic, saying they "weren't discussed during the campaign at all."

I never said Obama didn't get any flack. But really, you're confusing online flack with media flack. The pin and pledge of allegiance were almost exclusively online, unless you watch Fox News. Wright was a big issue, absolutely. Ayers and spreading the wealth got almost no media attention unless it was to rebuke those or on Fox News. John McCain's houses, Palin's wardrobe, and John Edwards's haircut, however, got plenty of media attention for no reason.

Grand Master

Rigby

Posted
Posted
I thought he compared himself to an average middleclass American worker. Buying a ring that expensive just shows that he's just like any other rich greedy politician!

When did he say that, and what does it have to do with this anyway? Why does buying an expensive gift for your spouse make you greedy? Yeah, let's just ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has given to charity.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Sarcasm translates very well when there is an obvious hyperbole, as I gave you:

Pretty sure that's obviously sarcastic, saying they "weren't discussed during the campaign at all."

I never said Obama didn't get any flack. But really, you're confusing online flack with media flack. The pin and pledge of allegiance were almost exclusively online, unless you watch Fox News. Wright was a big issue, absolutely. Ayers and spreading the wealth got almost no media attention unless it was to rebuke those or on Fox News. John McCain's houses, Palin's wardrobe, and John Edwards's haircut, however, got plenty of media attention for no reason.

I watch CNN and BBC. Pin, pledge, Wright, Ayers, and socialism were all covered--whether from McCain commentators or other reporters.

Socialism and Ayers was all I ever really heard the last few months of the campaign.

Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted

Again, however, let's discuss how they were covered.

Because I'm positive that almost all the socialism and Ayers talk from reporters were rebukes. And we're not talking about the campaigns -- we're talking about journalists, as I've repeatedly said. Of course the opposite campaign isn't going to give his opponent a break.

Grand Master

spy beef

Posted
Posted
When did he say that, and what does it have to do with this anyway? Why does buying an expensive gift for your spouse make you greedy? Yeah, let's just ignore the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has given to charity.

He kept saying that he grew up in an average american family with his mother on the south side of Chicago, and knew what it was like being one.

The average american can barely afford their basic necessities let alone purchase a gift that's worth their yearly salary! Obama is slowly peeling of that mask of lies and revealing his true selfish self.

Grand Master

giga Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Again, however, let's discuss how they were covered.

Because I'm positive that almost all the socialism and Ayers talk from reporters were rebukes. And we're not talking about the campaigns -- we're talking about journalists, as I've repeatedly said. Of course the opposite campaign isn't going to give his opponent a break.

Certainly reporters rebuked notions that Obama was connected to Ayers organization or terrorism in any way, but that's not the whole effectiveness of media and marketing

Any media is media. The fact that there was a huge concentration on Obama/Ayers/Terrorism and Obama/Spreading Wealth/Joe Plumber/Socialism in the media hurt Obama--whether the reporters were reporting the true facts of the situation is different from them actually reporting it.

Right now, it just seems like you're playing devil's advocate, saying that they wouldn't report this story on the 20k jewelry, even though they did for Edwards haircut, Palin's clothes, and McCain's houses.

Grand Master

spenser.d

Posted
Posted
How many homeless could he feed with that kind of money? While it is his money; it is always nice to see someone practice what they preach. How about spreading that wealth around!

Is this a joke? Obama and his wife took their kids to feed the homeless the day before Thanksgiving. Your argument holds no merit as he actually did 'practice what he preached'. Unless you're going to tell me that you yourself are going to stop spending money on anything that's not absolutely necessary to live and give it all away to the homeless, you can't make this argument against Obama. He's given plenty back to the community and can spend his money how he pleases.

-Spenser

Grand Master

Rigby

Posted
Posted (edited)
He kept saying that he grew up in an average american family with his mother on the south side of Chicago, and knew what it was like being one.

What is your point? Did he forget what that was like when he became wealthy? Did his childhood change?

The average american can barely afford their basic necessities let alone purchase a gift that's worth their yearly salary! Obama is slowly peeling of that mask of lies and revealing his true selfish self.

Again, maybe you missed the part about him giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity. Yeah, he's so selfish. The ring is pocket change compared to what he has given. Is he supposed to give ALL of his money away to be a good person? What did he lie about anyway? What is so selfish about buying a gift for someone that he can easily afford?

Sorry but your post is complete nonsense.

Edited by TRC
Grand Master

spy beef

Posted
Posted (edited)
What is your point? Did he forget what that was like when he became wealthy? Did his childhood change?

Again, maybe you missed the part about him giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to charity. Yeah, he's so selfish. The ring is pocket change compared to what he has given. Is he supposed to give ALL of his money away to be a good person? What did he lie about anyway? What is so selfish about buying a gift for someone that he can easily afford?

Sorry but your post is complete nonsense.

No, you are missing the point that he still had his mask on when he donated to charity.

Also it doesn't matter how much he gives away to charity. All that kindness doesn't compare to the wasting of 20000 euros for a ring, when many Americans barely make that much per year, or even have that much in their bank accounts. He's just like any other politician throwing his money around with out any worries at all.

Why couldn't he just buy a regular ring at jewelery shop, but had to get it customized out of most expensive and rare metal on Earth? That doesn't look like the modest and humble man America knew before the election?

Edited by s3n4te
Grand Master

Ayepecks

Posted
Posted
Certainly reporters rebuked notions that Obama was connected to Ayers organization or terrorism in any way, but that's not the whole effectiveness of media and marketing

Any media is media. The fact that there was a huge concentration on Obama/Ayers/Terrorism and Obama/Spreading Wealth/Joe Plumber/Socialism in the media hurt Obama--whether the reporters were reporting the true facts of the situation is different from them actually reporting it.

Right now, it just seems like you're playing devil's advocate, saying that they wouldn't report this story on the 20k jewelry, even though they did for Edwards haircut, Palin's clothes, and McCain's houses.

I'm not playing devil's advocate.

The media royally slammed McCain for the houses thing, and Edwards for the $400 haircut, saying both times that these politicians weren't being sensitive to what most Americans are going through. Why should Obama not be slammed for being insensitive for the exact same matter? Sure, report it. But if you're going to report it, be fair. Don't slam one side for something, then not slam the other side when they do almost the exact same thing.

Again, that's been my problem with the media recently. They give Obama a free pass no matter what he does. I fail to see how rebuking stuff and letting the public know "hey, this is wrong" hurt Obama. So you're saying that when they rebuked this information that it all hurt Obama? I find that extremely hard to believe. Of course they had an obligation to report it. And they did the right thing by saying a lot of the information was wrong. But the media repeatedly editorialized their stances by bringing up the McCain and Edwards scenarios I mentioned by saying "hey, these guys are being insensitive to what Americans are going through" but not doing the same for Obama in this scenario.

I never said they wouldn't report it. I said it's getting a different spin. He's being a loving husband is the spin right now. They're just reporting it. But they editorialized McCain's houses over and over again.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.