I would rather have a Davey Crockett than your so called elites based on their track records. And I hope the spouse isn't your basis to vote for, it certainly is not mine.
I changed the title to this thread in lue of the facts showing a couple of FLs have had near as large of staffs. I have not changed my opinion.
Serious question, if Snopes says it did not happen is that 100% fact. Are they that reliable? I have rarely visited the site and really know nothing about their fact checking skills.
http://freepatriotpost.com/watch-michelle-obama-a-man-who-would-be-surprised-if-true/ I bring this to the conversation as an example of just how low the media is willing to stoop....
That pedestal style thinking is complete crap. Let them be Americans like everyone else. Elites is a very British mindset. Screw them.
It is 100 % fact that the premise of the meme is not true. Folks want to twist it as Snopes misrepresenting things, but the meme was that M. Obama had an exorbitant staff compared to her predecessors. She doesn't. Fact. That her predecessors also had large staffs may be problematic according to Broyles and BPV, but to say Snopes was wrong would be completely inaccurate. I have no idea of Snopes is 100 % right all the time. I doubt it. But they source their stuff, so you can evaluate it on a case by case basis. But if you think they're wrong on this, you're missing what they're evaluating-- the claim itself.
I've found snopes to generally be pretty good, but they are like any of these sites. Obviously they don't have the same journalistic standards as real news sources.
Screw you. You implied they deserve some sort of special treatment due to their elite status. That's idiotic and that damn sure isn't new.
Snopes is wrong plenty and using it here to debunk Anderson's point was equally wrong. You jumped on your horsecrap truth bandwagon and joined the wrong parade. I enjoy that.
No I didn't. I pointed out we weren't electing blue collar salt-of-the-Earth people, so why would one expect blue collar results? Here's a Rosetta stone for my posts: whatever you think I'm saying or meaning is wrong. Like, pretty much every time. Just discard it. Of course, I don't think it is a "mistake." I think you just like making straw men to knock over.
Hey man, how many staff members did past first ladies have again? And what was the claim? Enjoy that truthiness. Goes down smooth. Facts are facts, enjoy your fantasy.
Snopes may not be a shining beacon of truth but the Canada Free Press appears to be hot garbage, with several articles from the likes of Liberty Counsel. The high number and cost of the staffs of multiple FLOTUS is ridiculous and largely wasteful, so to the larger point of the post I am in agreement. However, that article took a strange circuitous and misleading route to make the point. I'm also curious why the article or Anderson felt it important to break down the makeup of the current first lady's staff? So 60% are black and 23% Muslim. Relevance? Why leave out the other 40%/77%? Shouldn't we go ahead and finish the analysis? Why even bring that up? This is why valid points often get obscured or missed - too much crappy extra credit.
