First Lady Requires Photo ID for Her Book Signings

otisptoadwater wrote: jmc, you are really going out of your way to avoid answering simple a question. Are you afraid you'll tip your hand and we'll all find out your are a liberal? That much has been obvious for some time now.

Archer, as much as I try to ignore you, explain to me how posting factual information about what Michelle requires of people to attend a book signing is an insult or an attack? If I called Michelle fat, or said she was ugly you'd have an argument; try again and use some truth and logic this time.

I answered your stupid question.
Archer did too , You are comparing the safety of a public figure with.................F''k it you are too stupid to understand, not worth another key stroke.

otisptoadwater wrote: jmc, you are really going out of your way to avoid answering simple a question. Are you afraid you'll tip your hand and we'll all find out your are a liberal? That much has been obvious for some time now.

Archer, as much as I try to ignore you, explain to me how posting factual information about what Michelle requires of people to attend a book signing is an insult or an attack? If I called Michelle fat, or said she was ugly you'd have an argument; try again and use some truth and logic this time.

My post wasn't directed at you.....interesting that you thought it was......

I was referring to this post by fred, I even used his name in my post.......defensive much?

FredHayek wrote: .but voting is a right, and attending an event with Michele is punishment

archer wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: jmc, you are really going out of your way to avoid answering simple a question. Are you afraid you'll tip your hand and we'll all find out your are a liberal? That much has been obvious for some time now.

Archer, as much as I try to ignore you, explain to me how posting factual information about what Michelle requires of people to attend a book signing is an insult or an attack? If I called Michelle fat, or said she was ugly you'd have an argument; try again and use some truth and logic this time.

My post wasn't directed at you.....interesting that you thought it was......

I was referring to this post by fred, I even used his name in my post.......defensive much?

FredHayek wrote: .but voting is a right, and attending an event with Michele is punishment

Just explaining why they do need to use photo ID to protect the President's wife, but anyone who wants to come off the street to vote, from convicted felons who have lost this right to people claiming residence in multiple states don't need photo ID to cast illegal votes.

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: jmc, you are really going out of your way to avoid answering simple a question. Are you afraid you'll tip your hand and we'll all find out your are a liberal? That much has been obvious for some time now.

Archer, as much as I try to ignore you, explain to me how posting factual information about what Michelle requires of people to attend a book signing is an insult or an attack? If I called Michelle fat, or said she was ugly you'd have an argument; try again and use some truth and logic this time.

My post wasn't directed at you.....interesting that you thought it was......

I was referring to this post by fred, I even used his name in my post.......defensive much?

FredHayek wrote: .but voting is a right, and attending an event with Michele is punishment

Just explaining why they do need to use photo ID to protect the President's wife, but anyone who wants to come off the street to vote, from convicted felons who have lost this right to people claiming residence in multiple states don't need photo ID to cast illegal votes.

And I found it offensive, but that's just me. I would never make such a comment about the wife of the president....I have always thought the wife and children of the President of the United States should be off limits. But I am well aware that many of the conservatives here don't feel that way. I guess my momma just brought me up right.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote:

otisptoadwater wrote: jmc, you are really going out of your way to avoid answering simple a question. Are you afraid you'll tip your hand and we'll all find out your are a liberal? That much has been obvious for some time now.

Archer, as much as I try to ignore you, explain to me how posting factual information about what Michelle requires of people to attend a book signing is an insult or an attack? If I called Michelle fat, or said she was ugly you'd have an argument; try again and use some truth and logic this time.

My post wasn't directed at you.....interesting that you thought it was......

I was referring to this post by fred, I even used his name in my post.......defensive much?

FredHayek wrote: .but voting is a right, and attending an event with Michele is punishment

Just explaining why they do need to use photo ID to protect the President's wife, but anyone who wants to come off the street to vote, from convicted felons who have lost this right to people claiming residence in multiple states don't need photo ID to cast illegal votes.

And I found it offensive, but that's just me. I would never make such a comment about the wife of the president....I have always thought the wife and children of the President of the United States should be off limits. But I am well aware that many of the conservatives here don't feel that way. I guess my momma just brought me up right.

I really think the role of President's wife has changed since Hilary Clinton, sitting in on healthcare policy. And now so many wives are campaigning on their own. Even Ann Romney was just in town raising money for her husband. No longer is is like Pat Nixon, seen and not heard.

I guess everyone is ID obsessed now. First the right, now the left (I guess this is like mandated health care) - we need another side that like freedom - any ideas? Barcodes coming to a neck near you real soon - oh wait we have chips for that. Oh wait, we are only months away from the technology being there so you can be chipped and not even know it, oh wait, you may already have been chipped...oh and cool, there is an app that I can use to track you...and it's free. coool.

archer wrote: Just SOP around here....If you don't have anything to bash Obama with, go after his wife. Can't wait to see what they bash his children about tomorrow. If a liberal had posted about Laura Bush what Fred posted about Michelle Obama you would have heard the outrage from the righties from here to Texas. But insulting a Democrat's wife......that is just A-OK.

What is being bashed is the usual hypocrisy of the "progressive" wing of our union. They say that requiring a photo id is discriminatory and racist out of one side of their mouth while requiring a photo id to attend a book signing by the First Lady or to gain admittance to a convention where votes are going to be cast for delegates. Either requiring a photo-id is discriminatory and excludes people from participation or it is a safeguard intended to preserve integrity. It isn't one of these in one circumstance and the other in a different one. That isn't too difficult to comprehend, is it?

Uh a certain lefty looney here used to bash Bush's kids all the time.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Uh a certain lefty looney here used to bash Bush's kids all the time.

Interesting how you will whine about what a "certain lefty loony" posts, then use it as justification for what a "certain right wing nut" posts. Or was this just a simple wah, wah, wah...you do it too post?

jmc wrote: You are comparing the safety of a public figure with.................F''k it you are too stupid to understand, not worth another key stroke.

Comparing the safety of the public figure with the safety of the vote - is that what you finally came to understand as accurate and why you abandoned the attempt jmc? Yes, the safety of both is at issue and that safety is enhanced in both instances by requiring that a photo-id is presented. They are indeed analogous to each other in that regard - which is why the "progressives" are being transparent hypocrites by attempting to imply otherwise.