|Obama's DaughtersPage 3 of 7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)|
|But where are the examples of campaign and White House 'issues' that the girls have been in on?|
Yes, all families are introduced to the American public during the campaign--that is hardly an 'issue', to use the word the poster used.
Have the girls sat in on State business?
Do they have a vote in regard to foreign affairs?
Obama referenced his daughters in a remark about abortion--is that really an 'issue'? Or nitpicking?
Is there a difference between referencing one's daughters and in using them in an advertising promotion without the parents' permission?
Weak examples, and they do nothing to prove the point.
Posted: 9/4/2009 4:38:26 PM
Is there a difference between referencing one's daughters and in using them in an advertising promotion without the parents' permission?
Yes, there IS a difference. And that's why we're having this discussion. Thank you for framing the issue so succinctly.
Posted: 9/4/2009 7:46:17 PM
|I'm only speaking for myself--can't guess what others are thinking, and I don't pretend to speak for many/most/some.|
Yes; it is okay for Obama to promote healthy lunches with his daughters--that's a no-brainer--he is THEIR FATHER.
It is quite another thing for the girls to be used without parental permission.
That whole pesky 'permission' thingy seems to be difficult for some to wrap their brains around.
It isn't rocket science.
I have stated elsewhere on this board that ALL children should be off-limits.
The issue isn't one of hypocrisy--This is about a specific instance.
Keep it on track.
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:22:24 AM
|I have to admit, it gives the issue and organization attention. But, positive attention?|
I don't know about that.
The campaign lacks class.
Children should never be targeted, no matter who their parents are.
It's ironic b/c it is meant to get to the heart of People, their sympathy.
But, most people that easily sympathize/empathizes with children, will be put off that the Obama girls are being exploited.
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:28:05 AM
Obama only has himself to Blame he used his kids in every photo op he could during the campaign.Putting yourself out there as the Celebrity President kind of changes the rules a bit.Kind of pointless to close the barn door after the Horses already got out especially when you were the one who opened it....
You really think that he should have ignored the fact that he had a family?
Look at Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, all presidents that had adolescent childern....
They embraced the fact that they were a family and pictures of the family were always classy and it embodies the history and aesthetic of American presidents.
It isn't valid to say he should be blamed for that.
Posted: 10/8/2009 7:50:25 AM
|Those that can not appreciate Obama's daughters, I just want to put a cloak around them and protect them from all this harsh shit. I love these girls. It gives me a great sense of pride to see some little BLACK kids in the WHITE house. I do wish the had son to make it complete or even. |
The fact that they are black is not lost on others. A couple of months ago the oldest girl was photograph in Hawaii with a peace-sign t-shirt on. Some right-wing radio or television blog had the photo up and had one of those 'caption this photo' thing. Oh my god the racist and most sexist things were said about these young girls! Stuff like about when was she going to get her first abortion and stuff like that. They haven't done anything to deserve such comments at all! No one deserves such comments but they are kids.
The thing at hand, asking about why the girls have something and other's dont - I don't really have a problem with that itself but that's a slippery slope and I don't wanna see where it can lead too - so no I don't think they should be in such ads and Pres Obama and his wife were absolutely right to stop it.
And Obama didn't put his children out there for photo ops. During his campaign he mostly by himself. I didn't really even see the children untill his inauguration. And I saw a few front page headlining photos in magazines that glamorized the first family and that was it. After that, they don't purposely do photo ops but the media follows them around and take every picture they can find. They disect Ms. Obama and the children on everything because ofcourse they are 'different' (read: Black) so they want to know what other difference is gonna go with that.
Posted: 10/8/2009 4:19:21 PM
|absolutely,the little girls did not run for office,that needs parental approval,those with the posters should be able to be arrested for taking advantage of a minor or using a minor without parental consent.Those innocent young girls are not the advertising spokepeople for our countries school lunches or in a position to be ridiculed that maybe they have something different than other kids.|
Posted: 10/10/2009 9:05:39 AM
It should be up to the parents where and when and how their children are exposed to the media. the haters cannot comprehend your thought,that being the only correct thought that only a parent can decide if they want their kids used.Guess if I took their kids and used them for,say,like ,car advertisements then he might understand he lost total control of how I'm using his kids,maybe I'll use them,in a beware of hemorrhoids ads,that might get the basic concept across to the haters,hmmm,maybe "Kids are against world peace" ads.Then all of a sudden you would hear these same parents,actually do think its the parents decision if their kids will be used by strangers.
Apparently they believe a parent has no choice on how a stranger uses their kids.They spelled that out clearly and I say they're very wrong.On these Obama threads it seems the haters say almost anything to stay opposed,and even they later regret their stance.Its alot of work to hate.
Posted: 10/10/2009 9:49:48 AM
^^^Agree. Hate. The hate against this man is almost pure in it's essense, very virulent and malevolent. Gosh, really, it must take a lot of energy, so much hating. I didn't like Bush, didn't like him at all, but I'd never consider spending to much time, thought and enery into finding fault with every breath he took.
ismene2 ~ I agree with many of your posts and thoughts, and most definitely on this particular point.
If some of the zealots who spend all their energy into hating would put that energy into something productive the world would be a much nicer place. I can't imagine living with all the anger inside that these people have... They just sound like very unhealthy, miserable, bitter people.
Posted: 10/10/2009 9:55:22 AM
Absolutely and emphatically disagree. Even if a parent makes a mistake, and then tries to correct that mistake, does that mean they are not allowed to and the child should suffer for it indefinitely? I cannot believe the meanness of heart and spirit that makes people want to visit upon two innocent children a virulent dislike of the father. Unbelieveable. I absolutely agree,it should be embarrassing to post a comment like he did,he actually thinks one can use and abuse children,unbelievable,you should be ashamed of yourself,this is not something that's allowed because of fame or richness,or maybe you have levels of acceptability,its ok if its advertising kittens or green energy but wrong if its porn advertisement.I'm here to tell you its not acceptable in any light ,for any reason,no matter how harmless "you" or others think,and still I stand firmly on my statement that those that are using them now should be up for charges of using minors against there will.A very serious act.Its an actual crime !At least let the abusers cease immediately and post a very public apology clearly stating how wrong and repentant they truly are,and how it will never happen again !
Posted: 10/10/2009 10:40:54 AM
|are you for real ? this whole argument is about adults that think they can use strangers kids photos as their advertisement models without consent of the parent,irregardless if the parent is rich or poor or famous or a nobody.Please don't infuse a completely different subject into this thread,find the appropriate forum since your question has not a shred to do with this topic !|
Posted: 10/10/2009 1:20:02 PM
Please read the original post......The Obama kids aren't even in the ad you %^&$%^@)_^%!><[edited by my own hand].......they were just referenced to.....Posters went up last week, 14 in Union Station. On each of the large displays, a thought bubble rises up from a picture of a beautiful 8-year-old: "President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?" (Washington Post)
Even the subject line is.....[gasp]....Obama's Daughters.
The White House immediately requested the signs be removed. The non-profit organization that purchased the signs has refused. Apparently the Prez & First Lady are furious. They do not want their children involved in such affairs.
Yeah, me either, I don't want my children involved in this mess either, but guess what I have no choice.
So what do you think? Should the signs be removed? Are referencing the Prez's children going too far? Does he have the right to monitor advertisement & be allowed to decide which should stay & which should go? Is referencing his children a cheap shot? .................................................
Yes I did read it,and misread it,I did not notice that the Obama kids were not actually in the pictures,my conclusion of a misread came after Obamas said they don't want their children involved that way,and even the title is the Obama daughters.That does change the OPs post,but I do stand behind anychild being used without parental consent even though I see now that the Obama girls were not in the photo,I also notice that post after post went by without a soul saying they were not in the picture.In this case I believe it is alright to state that a presidents or a Mayors or a child in a great school community gets that lunch when others don't because its about equality,yet that is what Obama is about so its also a slam on one that objects to inequalities as if he is even able to tackle all the countries dozens of major woes at hyper speed as if he is Superman within his first year.
As for the porn reference, if one is allowed to put a child on a poster at what point does it become wrong,fuzzy kittens or porn,I stated both were just as wrong,and I stated it under the wrong assumption that the Obama kids were wrongly photographed.Which they weren't ,it was implied,upon careful re reading I see that.
Posted: 10/10/2009 1:47:55 PM
Wow.....if Palin is running around the White House in a few years and I make the statement about how nice it is to see some "white"[sorry,should have been "WHITE"l kids running around the "White House".......will I get a shit storm of folks screaming at how "racist" I must be to say such a thing?
And just for the sake of the math....it would take 2[two] sons to get the kids "even".
Why wait on Palin? Haven't the last 43 presidents and their children been white? Geeze yall are a lost friggin cause.
Anywayz, call it what you want. I still like the fact that there are little girls who look like mine in the WHITE house, something many of us would have NEVER thought possible. And 'even' was the wrong word. But a little black son of the president would have been nice too - 'even' as in having both a black son and daughter in the white house - as kids of the president.
Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.
Posted: 10/10/2009 6:09:19 PM
And you lefties are right--we're giving Obama the same reception your seditious minions gave Bush: as much hate and disgust as we can muster. He stands against everything that made this country great but people give him a free pass because he's the first black socialist president.
...zipping up the lemming jammies...
That may be but he isn't my president.
Yes. He is.
Posted: 10/10/2009 6:36:39 PM
I know exactly what you mean nappykat; it's a wonderful thing. Very wonderful. I agree,its wonderful,I had hoped in my lifetime a woman or a black person or something other than just a white man and hopefully not from another oil family,would eventually get their day.It finally happened,and on top of that he is brilliant,he's another Lincoln or Kennedy or an FDR,one of great vision capable of a world audience.A savior indeed !
Posted: 10/10/2009 8:54:09 PM
|So basically you just hate any of our countries greatest presidents . That Nobel Peace prize must make you burn .If you hate our greats I wonder who you do like ? Don't answer that though,we are really off subject here,lets get back on the threads topic not this topic !|
Posted: 10/10/2009 10:18:12 PM
Seems like the non-profit agency that put up these posters is more interested in partisan politics than in feeding kids healthy school lunches. From the description of the poster, they appear to be straight out propaganda posters. What is the actual status of the school lunch situation? Are kids not getting healthy lunches? Which schools? Alls schools in NYC? If not, why not? Who is responsible? Why are these people so suddenly concerned and not before when Bush was president? Do they expect Obama to solve the world and national economic crisis, get us out of two wars, solve the Middle East Conflict, repair America's role in the international community, and make sure kids in NYC are getting good school lunches, all in 9 months? Why is Obama responsible for the situation with school lunches in NYC anyway? The USA does not have a national education system. School lunches in NYC are the responsibility of the state and local governments and school district there. And finally, how do Obama's children come into it anyway? What are they being held responsible for? What does any of his have to do with them? The posters are pure propaganda. wow,excellent points you made !
Posted: 10/11/2009 9:25:11 AM
|If Kennedy was such a loser and Lincoln such a racist and FDR good merely for term limits why does America hold them so dear and teach our kids about them in school,seems most Americans other than you are looking deeper.You seem challenged just to debate a simple idea without cursing.As for color of Obama,its very important to recognize that we as a country have finally grown up enough to embrace a black president after a long history of slavery and persecution,now you like to mention hes Mulatto but yet a handful of years back,I can assure you the Klan would not have cared little about that white part and hung him anyways.|
Even though your driven to rob him of any praise whether the amazing feats he has already done,and there have been many,or the Nobel or the first black as president,just shows me that he could pave our streets with gold and your comment would be where did he steal the gold from.
Are you really a boxer, since your down for the count,how many fingers am I holding up.
Posted: 10/11/2009 11:28:15 AM
|We love Kennedy because he was about dreaming big,the you can do anything,in fact lets go to the moon,and we did,very quickly I might ad,who cares if Kennedy slept with Monroe,whats that got to do with being a great president.FDR,his accomplishments are so vast there isn't the space here the write it all and Lincoln,he showed the world that any man from humble poor beginnings without proper schooling can work hard and become president,he freed the slaves,ect.ect. |
It is quite true though we have some men we seem to enjoy like Columbus that was like the third explorer that discovered America,that's like what 600 years later and then he slaughtered the people and gave them disease,the whole mission was get Gold.so I do understand we do have those on pedestals that half adore and half can't stand,so some of your point was well taken,thank you !
I don't discount the white half of Obama,its the black part that bothers some of the haters .After all I have been saying its about time,felt the same way when ladies got the right to vote.Your correct, although Klan is diminished in being so out on the street,I believe they are still very strong and many now go by the name Aryan,exact same thing,so they are now probably greater in number if you combine the two groups,good point you made !
Middle finger,actually thats funny,had not thought of that,it was about a knocked down boxer (in context of argument) and being asked is your vision was fuzzy,how many fingers am I holding up.
I will not say another word not related to the Obama Girls,I think the Obamas as any parent has the right to vocalize there concerns about any reference in the media about them,their rights are no different than any other parent.
Yes they as other presidents have at times brought there kids out to wave or say something cute or have a select picture taken,but it was under the control of the parent,I know there are times the kids are photographed and then in worldwide view such as Kennedy junior saluting his fathers casket,a touching moment in time and the family probably were touched,point being no one then used that picture as their companies advertisement as if Kennedy was that companies poster child.
Posted: 10/11/2009 4:38:52 PM
These 2 children have NOTHING to do with school lunches in NYC. Their father is not responsible for the quality of school lunches in schools in NYC I agree,any parent has the right to say no having their children referenced on a poster
ohhhh,I promised,but I hated the concept of Japanese American internment camps,a sickening act a horrible mistake and a blight on history,Ouch,got me,and good point ! Touche !
Back to the girls,what sweethearts they are,I wish my nephews and nieces were so well behaved,these girls are outstanding youngsters.It shows the level of care and nurturing these girls receive and it shows why Obama is so concerned of how they are publicly involved,because with these parents,the kids path is critical a very important to them !
Posted: 10/13/2009 10:27:14 PM
|so what so he said his kids want a dog,big deal most all of us owned a dog,what is there some hidden message in there.Parents are allowed to talk about their kids if they want,his wife said they would do there best to shelter them from all this and try to make a regular family home out of the white house,and so now they got a dog,wow,its almost cryptic in your mind.|
There has not been a shred of proof in all these decades that Monroe was killed by Kennedy or his people,that's what you are implying,your whole rebuttal is so extremely petty,the more you talk the less you have to say !
Posted: 10/13/2009 10:51:20 PM
|Yes the Obamas had a very family approved kid safe thing on the air where they said they wanted a dog.Are you kidding me,your able not able to separate a family man talking of getting a dog ,and special moment that the parents controlled and felt safe for their kids and that there is a difference in a poster out there against the parents control stating the girls have lunch advantages all others don't have .They had no permission to USE the girls as there puppet.Get a clue !|
They have had theories for 4 decades and never has it ever been proved,who cares of some others also still buy into this unproved stuff after 4 decades,ever organization has taken their stab at proving any of this and never able.Your rebuttal is pure pettiness.You cannot discredit Kennedy if there is no proof and 4 decades later he is innocent.
Thousands worldwide think there is Sasquatch and Loch Ness.That doesn't mean we can act like they are there until we have any proof,In all these decades we have a couple fuzzy pictures and videos and hundreds that have profited from tours,and sales and books,same with Kennedy,it sells books,thats it.I want fact not theories like yours.Stick to the Obama girls,its about does a parent have a right to control if a stranger uses them as there negative slam campaign,its not about Monroe or Kennedy or an approved parental photo ops as you use as an example,there is a big difference !
Posted: 10/14/2009 12:42:03 AM
And FDR had nothing to do with Hiroshima or Nagasaki either......? I think your putting me on,Yes its true FDR had nothing to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki he had been dead for 4 months,that was Harry S. Truman.As for a difference of whether a parent has a right to selectively show off there kids in their way ,time and place compared to a stranger using those kids as there pawns against the protest of the parents and you say there is no differnce well your hopeless and not worth debating anymore,I'm tired of your inaccuracies and petty comebacks and the inability the understand the simplest concept that just because a parent wants to selectively show there child for a moment doesn't mean its ok for strangers to use them as propaganda to live on in infamamy without parental permission.
Avoided that little nugget didn't you.....?
And what news came out to make him "innocent"? and what news and facts and evidence ever came out to prove him guilty
So I guess that all the theories about Mayan,Incan etc,etc,etc civilizations having been visited by folks[loose term]from outer space are bunk too? your expecting a comeback,yes this has alot to do with exploiting the Obama girls !
Blatantly exploitive of "only" two.Who....by the way weren't even there.the child is not the one in question ,I don't even know if there is a picture in the poster,if there is zero news or complaints from the pictured person, if there is one, that might be because they got permission,ya,maybe she got paid,hey that would make it ok correct,parental permission and payment.I'm going to bed,this is stupid !
Does the child that is actually in the poster not count because ......maybe she got PAID to do it?
Posted: 10/14/2009 8:21:47 AM
Wow....he got one!!!!Yippeeeeeeeee. (claimed FDR dropped the bomb) great just what we need in a hate thread,someone that claims he purposely put wrong info in as a test hoping someone will spot it.
Yes there is a difference ,it is ok if your mommy and daddy say you can do something legal and no its not ok when a big bad stranger uses you on a poster and that poster is worldwide news and that big bad man never even talked to mommy or daddy and further more refuses to stop.
And so much of this post has centered about NOT using kids at all.......doesn't matter who.Huuuummmhhhh.....yes it does matter its supposed to stay focused and on track,yes the subject leans sometimes but as soon as others starts noticing we're way off track we're supposed to try to focus.I for one will ignore your tests and drivel,that will help,as for the last part,god only knows what you meant,please don't explain,someone shouldn't have to clarify their rebuttals each time they type,try using less innuendos and hidden messages or remarks only your friends might understand !
Great.....3 sides to a two sided argument.Must be "liberal rithmetic"
Posted: 10/14/2009 9:51:00 AM
|It was enjoyable looking at what the other countries did for school lunch,its a mixed bag.First off ,this thread is only about a parents rights,nothing else !|
If one wants to argue food quality,thats a great debate.I for one hate that schools years ago sold out the Taco Bells and McDonalds and the likes of Reagan started calling Ketchup a vegetable.I have always been there for good food,thats my vote,in fact a tray would not even have a cookie on it,ever !!!!!! Just like a Happy meal should not either or have a toy !
Pop wouldn't be in the school at all,Having owned a large Vending company its was a challenge to provide healthy choices for people,its that industry where I formed my strongest opinions.Even a granola bar,is twice the fat as a candy. If one tries hard though he can offer good snacks,if a school even had a snack machine it should be an apple machine,pop machines hold juices and those should be juice,brands that contain 5% juice are not juice.Snack machines can sell mixed fruit bags,asst. of nuts and raisins.I know that the best diet is one where the bad food was never brought into the house.In my Jr. High we had an apple machine,it landed in our school under great protest from the kids and a month later,every kid was seen eating apples,its as simple as when your hungry ,you eats what is there available to you.
We cannot compare Obamas private school,that I am certain he pays a small fortune for,and fortunes buy good food,but to have the same food in all schools public even to have the same lunch as inner city schools is very possible but on a much lesser scale.That said I think we need to revamp the entire school lunch program,a mandate stating equality in school food albeit a modest lunch,its a healthy lunch.No every school does not need to have an apple on their plate but each state can use its fruits and vegetables common to those ares,that might keep cost down and might support local produce.Salad would be a staple and the entre would be delicious and filling,but could still be easy and exotic,like stir fry,I'd offer vegan and a meat based dish,alter the proportions to the likes of your school,there would be a juice or a milk or a water and no cookies or potato chips.The closet I'd get to candy would be cold raw celery sticks and Broccoli that are dipped in Ranch dressing.Ranch dressing is crappy enough !
If the kids are to eat crap the parents are welcome to it on all the other snacks and meals when they are under the parents supervision,but not during their stay in the public school not under the governments watch.
Its also not fair for a teacher to have a sugar induced,wound up classroom only because LAYS and COKE has an exclusive contract with the school district,I do not care that these companies kick back money to the school ,don't help finance our schools or sports/team activities by taking away the health of our children.
Healthy is cheap compared to junk,vegetables and fruits are far cheaper by the pound than any candy item ever made.
I found the poster harmless,but that's not my say,if it pissed off the parents,they are owed an apology and the poster should go away,the point that lunches in public schools vary from extremely high priced private schools point could have been made without using the little girls.
First off the argument is ridiculous to compare the prestigious Sidwell Friends School ,you pay $30,000 dollars a year,you should get a waiter for that price,maybe even your own pony.Trust me the inequality is there because the Obamas pay extra for the extra quality,with there own money,its not free nor subsidized. They were probably pissed a little because morons tried to compare food at a $30,000 a year grade school to those at a heavily subsidized public school which function off of local area tax bases,which is why slum areas have less quality than luxury areas,the tax base is in a different universe.
For fun here is what they are having for lunch today for the small children !
Snack: Corn Muffins
All Natural Beef Chili
Organic Vegetarian Chili
its not the Ritz,nor would it be expensive to replicate at our public schools !
7 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)