David Icke on Michelle Obama - does he have a point?

First topic message reminder :

He mentions Mr Obama at the end - but I'm not really interested in that.
I am interested in what people truly make of his impression of Mrs Obama and her past occupational doings...

It's not a long clip

You know what, I thought we had got rid of the person who liked fighting for fighting's sake, but today you have taken over his mantle and I'm going to sign out again in case I say something that I might (or very well might not) regret.

I don't know what is going on to cause you to be like this, but don't take it out on us.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:4ever has called him cheeto Jesus's on many threads...

I think that's a little different, tommy.  First, he's the candidate; Michelle is not.  Second, Trump is himself given to attaching nombres to people, so inevitably he invites the same treatment back.  Third, his hair and coloring are the result of conscious grooming efforts to look that way, so that naming him after those characteristics is in fact just calling him by his own brand.

And perhaps people should use the net and find out what the origins of him being called Cheeto Jesus are, and it wasn't to do with his looks, it was to do with the fact he was pretending to be God like but is in fact and substandard human being.

sassy wrote:Well, I suggest you find the right thread or apologise, I don't know what the problem is, but your postings today have been unacceptable.   Perhaps you don't realise quite how nasty you have been.

Nasty?? Are you serious? I made a comment about my opinion....and then you read the rest sassy.
Now I'm nearly done with this topic because you can't out-argue a liar or someone who can't remember something you had previously joked about.


But here's a final thought: is it okay for 4ever to call Trump "Cheeto-Jesus"? Because the Cheeto part is ridiculing his looks....yes?
Now if you argue that the press or a blogger has called him that - then who is she to repeat it (according to both your rules) and is it okay then, for me to call Mrs Obama all the things I've read about her?

My only crime was to say she looked like a man IMO. The rest of the hysterical "omg!" posting was from the silly little ladies on here who gossip themsleves... As I've proven.

You're both hypocrites - just look at the way you talk to your fellow posters!
And you call me nasty?

Hope you both remember we had this conversation.
Here's hoping!

I would stop posting around about here, eds. First you give this gratuitous diatribe about Michelle Obama:

eddie wrote:Stop being so overly-sensitive! She's not feminine at all and looks like a man in drag and I would bet most men on here (apart from quill of course) don't find her attractive (though not ONE has the actual balls to admit it) - but you've made it about that and I am not bothered how she looks anyway, it was a throwaway remark by me because some one brought up the transgender thing!

Then you attack a member…

eddie wrote:Hmmmmm. Maybe for the same reason you're jealous of me, you freak of fucking nature.

What a cock you are.

…inventing your rules along the way.

eddie wrote:2) "The rules apply to others, but they do not apply to me."
They believe they are above the law—both legally and ethically. They feel entitled to behave however they choose, but others must be kept in line at all times. We see this in politics every single day, when our elected officials stomp across the morals they enforce upon everyone else.

And now you’ve got the whole flock against you.

Not very good as these things go.

Fucking hell, wish you knew what you were talking about before you lash out Eddie

Cheeto Jesus refers to the fact he thinks he's godlike but he's tat and was started by a fucking republican.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-operative-lashes-out-at-party-calls-trump-cheeto-jesus-in-epic-tweetstorm_us_57626d13e4b05e4be860ec59

Quill you're so predictably dull, biased and unimaginative.

I'm off to trim my feet.

sassy wrote:Fucking hell, wish you knew what you were talking about before you lash out Eddie

Cheeto Jesus refers to the fact he thinks he's godlike but he's tat and was started by a fucking republican.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gop-operative-lashes-out-at-party-calls-trump-cheeto-jesus-in-epic-tweetstorm_us_57626d13e4b05e4be860ec59

Oh my god. Yes sassy - Cheetos - the colour - his skin....

Fill in the gaps.

Read what was said and who called him it and why.   I gave you the link.

Yes and? What sassy? Does that give 4ever the right to call him that if I'm harassed for an opinion on Obama's wife....?

Fill in the gaps sassy. You're on a go-slow.

I can't go round in circles with this anymore. I'm really bored.

You're bored?   Really?   Well I'm fucking angry.

And the go-slow is you and you have practically bloody stopped.

He is not called Cheeto Jesus because of his looks, he is called it because of HIS GOD COMPLEX!!!!!!!!!!!

Now for crying out loud go and have a break, you are completely going against the new 'rules' Ben brought in and frankly bringing the board into disrepute.

sassy wrote:You know what, I thought we had got rid of the person who liked fighting for fighting's sake, but today you have taken over his mantle and I'm going to sign out again in case I say something that I might (or very well might not) regret.

I don't know what is going on to cause you to be like this, but don't take it out on us.

Okay. It's "victim" time.
Go see my hypocrite thread sassy.

4EVER2 wrote:

sassy wrote:Eddie, you know that humble pie?  

Here's the thread you appear to be talking about, thought I didn't remember it.

4Ever and I were not involved:

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t11318-donald-trump-s-bible-would-be-a-terrible-read

Remember, Eddie said "it doesn't matter - she doesn't care"

But 'I' have never denied this issue but it's not what I've been trying to get her to read; but for this day - she's arrived in a huge chip wedge firmly up her butt and she's gone beyond all reason and now has 2 topics that are for nothing but trashing members and THAT IS AGAINST THE RULES! 

But I'm the "fucking hypocrite/liar/bore off/senile/lying member" that has called our little eddie anything but IMMATURE!  And she's wearing that quite nicely, yet again!

But you see no problem in doing that to me...


Hypocrite!

sassy wrote:Well, I suggest you find the right thread or apologise, I don't know what the problem is, but your postings today have been unacceptable.   Perhaps you don't realise quite how nasty you have been.

You never provide any evidence to back up your accusations against me... and never apologise either...


Hypocrite!!!

sassy wrote:You're bored?   Really?   Well I'm fucking angry.

And the go-slow is you and you have practically bloody stopped.

He is not called Cheeto Jesus because of his looks, he is called it because of HIS GOD COMPLEX!!!!!!!!!!!

Now for crying out loud go and have a break, you are completely going against the new 'rules' Ben brought in and frankly bringing the board into disrepute.

Where does the Cheeto come from? Becasue when rags asked she was told it was his orange skin.

How am I bringing the board into disrepute? Please Sassy, stop playing that silly little victim thing you do. It's really underhand.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:You know what, I thought we had got rid of the person who liked fighting for fighting's sake, but today you have taken over his mantle and I'm going to sign out again in case I say something that I might (or very well might not) regret.

I don't know what is going on to cause you to be like this, but don't take it out on us.

Okay. It's "victim" time.
Go see my hypocrite thread sassy.

I'm no victim, I'll leave that to you, which is why you started this huff.

Cheeto Jesus means he is not a 'real' Jesus, he's downmarket, like a bag of Cheetos.

Bloody hell you are hard work and I've had enough of it.   When you are decent again I'll talk to you, until then, I won't because it's like talking to a 2 yr old with a temper tantrum.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:You're bored?   Really?   Well I'm fucking angry.

And the go-slow is you and you have practically bloody stopped.

He is not called Cheeto Jesus because of his looks, he is called it because of HIS GOD COMPLEX!!!!!!!!!!!

Now for crying out loud go and have a break, you are completely going against the new 'rules' Ben brought in and frankly bringing the board into disrepute.

Where does the Cheeto come from? Becasue when rags asked she was told it was his orange skin.

How am I bringing the board into disrepute? Please Sassy, stop playing that silly little victim thing you do. It's  really underhand.

Where the cheeto came from IS IN THE FUCKING LINK.

Original Quill wrote:I would stop posting around about here, eds.  First you give this gratuitous diatribe about Michelle Obama:

eddie wrote:Stop being so overly-sensitive! She's not feminine at all and looks like a man in drag and I would bet most men on here (apart from quill of course) don't find her attractive (though not ONE has the actual balls to admit it) - but you've made it about that and I am not bothered how she looks anyway, it was a throwaway remark by me because some one brought up the transgender thing!

Then you attack a member…

eddie wrote:Hmmmmm. Maybe for the same reason you're jealous of me, you freak of fucking nature.

What a cock you are.

…inventing your rules along the way.

eddie wrote:2) "The rules apply to others, but they do not apply to me."
They believe they are above the law—both legally and ethically. They feel entitled to behave however they choose, but others must be kept in line at all times. We see this in politics every single day, when our elected officials stomp across the morals they enforce upon everyone else.

And now you’ve got the whole flock against you.

Not very good as these things go.

I see you are doing that 'taking a comment out of context' thing you do so well Quill.
If you are going to post someone's comment, at least show the post they were replying to.

eddie wrote:I'm off to trim my feet.

...and a little bit off that acerbic tongue, too.

Not what 4ever said sassy, not that she will "remember" It's Cheetos like the crisps.

Not that I care. I don't have hissy fits because someone else doesn't like the same things as me, which is why this whole thing started.

And of course no lefties have ever laughed at Nigel Farages looks when one of the head woman lefty hypocrites said he looked like someone had stuck a finger up his arse and he quite liked it...!?


And wasn't it a woman who said Michael Howard had something of the night about him...!?



And wasn't it another woman who said Torys were too male and too pale etc...!?



The female lefties loved all this... but you mustn't mention a woman's looks... all in the name of equality mind!!!



Hypocrisy anyone...!?

Syl wrote:I see you are doing that 'taking a comment out of context' thing you do so well Quill.

It's an age old scholarly way of alluding/quoting another, honing in on the relevant speech to lend continuity to the dialogue.  Authors use it, periodicals use it, and now it is used in TV and video clips to get directly to the point.  If you think removing the words from context changes the meaning, make that case. It's a jury question.

Yes, it would help if Forumotion provided more than a window for a speaker name--perhaps numbering the posts or something--but I think from reading the context you can get that they are quotes from the instant dialogue.

My comments were directly to another.  Eddie knows what and where she spoke those words and that is all that matters.  I was just trying to get her to reflect, and perhaps temper her attacks.

I'm glad the 'cheeto' reference has been explained, I have only just worked out what FLOTUS stands for.

Tommy Monk wrote:
And of course no lefties have ever laughed at Nigel Farages looks when one of the head woman lefty hypocrites said he looked like someone had stuck a finger up his arse and he quite liked it...!?


And wasn't it a woman who said Michael Howard had something of the night about him...!?



And wasn't it another woman who said Torys were too male and too pale etc...!?



The female lefties loved all this... but you mustn't mention a woman's looks... all in the name of equality mind!!!



Hypocrisy anyone...!?

My whole point entirely.



I will however, apologise for mentioning the fact that sassy and 4ever are older than me in a derogatory way, as I know they are both as sharp as ever, hence my suprise when they claim to not remember doing exactly what you just described, about Trump,  only recently.

Never mind. It doesn't matter anymore. At least a couple of people can see where I'm coming from.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:4ever has called him cheeto Jesus's on many threads...

I think that's a little different, tommy.  First, he's the candidate; Michelle is not.  Second, Trump is himself given to attaching nombres to people, so inevitably he invites the same treatment back.  Third, his hair and coloring are the result of conscious grooming efforts to look that way, so that naming him after those characteristics is in fact just calling him by his own brand.

Quite what I've been typing but now that our 'little Eddie' has returned to her 'foot stamping/petulant' I am not reading anything {quite obviously she's stopped reading yesterday} and now she's twisted this entire topic around to attacking members instead to staying with her own thread. 

I've never denied that I haven't said anything about 'Cheeto-Jesus' but had you been able to CALM THE HELL DOWN AND BEHAVE LIKE AN ADULT, little Eddie you'd have been able to read what I wrote and now Quill has just repeated what I've written numerous times! 

Your hysterics' have just blown wide open all of those topics that you do love to drag in here about 'self improvement' ...no wonder the older members find your coy way of trying to pretend that you are so many of those listed qualities when they've known you far longer and once again --- your faked up image/disguise has slipped - drastically!     And now you've stirred up the Village Idiot and have his OCD engaged in your coy game of insanity and attacks! 
WELL DONE - MODERATOR, well done INDEED!

Ooooh this turned out to be a very stimulating thread! Cheer up, guys it's only a forum discussion.



Here's my take on this trump vs michelle obama comparison.  Trump gets very personal in his insults to people, he criticises people's looks and he even mentioned that the Cuban guy was too sweaty. So if he is liberally dishing out all this nastiness on a personal level, I'm sure he expects some back.


Mrs Obama  - well I don't think she's pretty or anything but unlike Trump, she never makes personal comments of any sort about anyone, and she rises above all criticism of her, never answers back - she's very dignified and decorous, in that respect.

That's the MASSIVE difference between the two, imo.

Jules wrote:Ooooh this turned out to be a very stimulating thread! Cheer up, guys it's only a forum discussion.



Here's my take on this trump vs michelle obama comparison.  Trump gets very personal in his insults to people, he criticises people's looks and he even mentioned that the Cuban guy was too sweaty. So if he is liberally dishing out all this nastiness on a personal level, I'm sure he expects some back.


Mrs Obama  - well I don't think she's pretty or anything but unlike Trump, she never makes personal comments of any sort about anyone, and she rises above all criticism of her, never answers back - she's very dignified and decorous, in that respect.

That's the MASSIVE difference between the two, imo.

Good points well made....plus Michelle Obama doesn't walk round with what looks like a dead duck on her head.

The thread was never about the differences between Trump and Michelle Obama but I still agree with your whole post Jules.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:

Well it's a long story, but the carpenter tried his hardest to create a table top which  floated in the air,  with no visible means of support, oblivious to gravitational forces, but he gave up in the end and made a proper base to support it, which explains the presence of the large slab of wood.

I did warn you it was a long story!  

The pic was edited... sassy posted up a video of the meeting and at no point did they all stand in the positions shown in picture!!!

TM, I've learnt a lot from reading your posts about photoshopping, thanks, but frankly sometimes the tweaking that photographers do is simply not relevant! Professional snappers have poetic licence to tweak, let them get on with it. You notice tweaks cos it's your hobby, TM,  but most people don't and even if they do, the human brain automatically discounts things which are not relevant to the big picture (yes, a pun).

We know that mr and mrs Obama and this very old lady goofed and danced around that room, cos we saw them actually do it in the vid and that is all that matters. The snapper might have tweaked the photo a bit, but we're not exactly in grand deception / major fraud  territory here , so it doesn't matter.  

I hear you, Eddie and Syl, thanks.

Syl wrote:I'm glad the 'cheeto' reference has been explained, I have only just worked out what FLOTUS stands for.

I did not know what cheeto-jesus meant either, till I read the explanations today.

But 'FLOTUS' has been around for many years and any acronym that replaces six words is a very useful short cut indeed, no?
I do not usually explain the acronyms I use cos that could come across as patronising but if I ever say anything someone does not understand I'm  always happy to explain, it's no trouble.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:Ooooh this turned out to be a very stimulating thread! Cheer up, guys it's only a forum discussion.



Here's my take on this trump vs michelle obama comparison.  Trump gets very personal in his insults to people, he criticises people's looks and he even mentioned that the Cuban guy was too sweaty. So if he is liberally dishing out all this nastiness on a personal level, I'm sure he expects some back.


Mrs Obama  - well I don't think she's pretty or anything but unlike Trump, she never makes personal comments of any sort about anyone, and she rises above all criticism of her, never answers back - she's very dignified and decorous, in that respect.

That's the MASSIVE difference between the two, imo.

Good points well made....plus Michelle Obama doesn't walk round with what looks like a dead duck on her head.

The argument is not about either Donald Trump or Michelle Obama themselves... it is about how some seem to try to argue that people shouldn't be criticised/judged on their looks... but when what they really mean is that they dont like it when some people are, while they are quite happy doing it to other people...!!!


Hypocrisy anyone...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Good points well made....plus Michelle Obama doesn't walk round with what looks like a dead duck on her head.

The argument is not about either Donald Trump or Michelle Obama themselves... it is about how some seem to try to argue that people shouldn't be criticised/judged on their looks... but when what they really mean is that they dont like it when some people are, while they are quite happy doing it to other people...!!!


Hypocrisy anyone...!!!???

Sense of humour failure anyone.

Thanks Jules....I did work it out in the end even though I have never seen that particular acronym before IYKWIM.

Tommy I thank you for completely understanding my point and furthermore, for just coming out and saying it.

I think you're a total idiot on some issues and on the homosexual ones, an ignoramus, but I really like your ability to stand alone and say what you think.

Bloody hell...it was a JOKE.

Syl wrote:Bloody hell...it was a JOKE.

I know.

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



The pic was edited... sassy posted up a video of the meeting and at no point did they all stand in the positions shown in picture!!!

TM, I've learnt a lot from reading your posts about photoshopping, thanks, but frankly sometimes the tweaking that photographers do is simply not relevant! Professional snappers have poetic licence to tweak, let them get on with it. You notice tweaks cos it's your hobby, TM,  but most people don't and even if they do, the human brain automatically discounts things which are not relevant to the big picture (yes, a pun).

We know that mr and mrs Obama and this very old lady goofed and danced around that room, cos we saw them actually do it in the vid and that is all that matters. The snapper might have tweaked the photo a bit, but we're not exactly in grand deception / major fraud  territory here , so it doesn't matter.  

So you are agreeing that the Obama pic was photoshop mash up or not...!?


And do you agree with my points on any other pics or not...?


And you claim 'artistic licence' for making doctored pics is ok...?


I would argue that many events are claimed to have happened... if there is a genuine picture of an event that can be shown as supporting evidence, then great...!

But making/showing a fake picture as 'supporting evidence' to a claim is totally wrong!!!


Especially when the fake picture is the ONLY 'evidence'...

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:Bloody hell...it was a JOKE.

I know.

Good..

He's an ugly bastard.
I don't think anyone will mind my saying that.

he's not left wing - check
he's not black - check
he's disliked - check
He's ugly - check

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:I'm glad the 'cheeto' reference has been explained, I have only just worked out what FLOTUS stands for.

I did not know what cheeto-jesus meant either, till I read the explanations today.

But 'FLOTUS' has been around for many years and any acronym that replaces six words is a very useful short cut indeed, no?  
I do not usually explain the acronyms I use cos that could come across as patronising but if I ever say anything someone does not understand I'm  always happy to explain, it's no trouble.

US president would do for one...


And presidents wife is irrelevant in political terms isn't she...?


I mean... she wasn't voted for or elected etc...


So has no political position/power/responsibility etc as such...?


So... Obama’s wife would do... or US presidents wife etc...


Or are you saying that she has a significant democratic political position...?


Deserving of a designated political title and set of responsibilities etc...?


So... as much fair game for looks based criticism and ridicule as you seem to think other politicians are justified targets for...?


Or is it only politicians you don't like who are fair game...?


Hypocrisy anyone...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:
I did not know what cheeto-jesus meant either, till I read the explanations today.

But 'FLOTUS' has been around for many years and any acronym that replaces six words is a very useful short cut indeed, no?  
I do not usually explain the acronyms I use cos that could come across as patronising but if I ever say anything someone does not understand I'm  always happy to explain, it's no trouble.

US president would do for one...

And presidents wife is irrelevant in political terms isn't she...?

I mean... she wasn't voted for or elected etc...

So has no political position/power/responsibility etc as such...?

So... Obama’s wife would do... or US presidents wife etc...

Or are you saying that she has a significant democratic political position...?

Deserving of a designated political title and set of responsibilities etc...?

So... as much fair game for looks based criticism and ridicule as you seem to think other politicians are justified targets for...?

Or is it only politicians you don't like who are fair game...?

Hypocrisy anyone...!?

Those are basically secret services acronyms that got out, and the public picked them up.

POTUS = President of the United States
FLOTUS = First lady of the United States
SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States  

They are easier to use than "Obama's wife" or "first lady".  

A far as is she fair game?  I guess anyone is fair game if you are nasty enough, tommy.  I think the point is that in politics any criticism of her is irrelevant...and, well, just being nasty because that's the way you are (speaking generically).

eddie wrote:Tommy I thank you for completely understanding my point and furthermore, for just coming out and saying it.

I think you're a total idiot on some issues and on the homosexual ones, an ignoramus, but I really like your ability to stand alone and say what you think.

I only speak the truth eddie...

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

US president would do for one...

And presidents wife is irrelevant in political terms isn't she...?

I mean... she wasn't voted for or elected etc...

So has no political position/power/responsibility etc as such...?

So... Obama’s wife would do... or US presidents wife etc...

Or are you saying that she has a significant democratic political position...?

Deserving of a designated political title and set of responsibilities etc...?

So... as much fair game for looks based criticism and ridicule as you seem to think other politicians are justified targets for...?

Or is it only politicians you don't like who are fair game...?

Hypocrisy anyone...!?

Those are basically secret services acronyms that got out, and the public picked them up.

POTUS = President of the United States
FLOTUS = First lady of the United States
SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States  

They are easier to use than "Obama's wife" or "first lady".  

A far as is she fair game?  I guess anyone is fair game if you are nasty enough, tommy.  I think the point is that in politics any criticism of her is irrelevant...and, well, just being nasty because that's the way you are (speaking generically).

Me???


Criticism of politicians when criticism is due is never irrelevant!!!



But where have i been criticising any politicians because of their looks here on this thread or anywhere on this forum...!!!???



It is the lefties here who are regularly dishing out looks based criticism... but then trying to argue that some should be free from this... mainly for claimed reasons of racism or sexism... all in the name of equality mind!!!

The thread was diverted away from the original topic and I actively dismissed claims of her being transgender -but perhaps she is? - I really don't care an iota.

What got me so annoyed was the hypocrisy and the sickly snide protests thrown at me for saying I didn't find her attractive and that she looked like a man in drag (have you seen her shoulders? I know lots and lots of females down my gym and the only ones who look that big, are the ones on steroids), when these same people have abused political figures like trump and Farage for their looks.

I stated I quite liked her as a persona and that I preferred her to her husband who's too slick for my tastes, but that wasn't good enough either.


Who the fecking feck cares what I think anyway?  Not the Obamas!

Thread started about Mrs Obama's alleged work history and pay rises...



Why did lefties divert this as they did...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Thread started about Mrs Obama's alleged work history and pay rises...
Why did lefties divert this as they did...?

'WE' didn't MORON ...we were discussing the BS blogger that her ROYAL WHINE ASSED QUEEN OF THE FUCK-WITS DRUG in here to feebly try to substantiate her claim about M. Obama's resume! 

But if you and your QUEEN of FUCK-WIT CITY were able to read and comprehend ENGLISH you'd understand all of that!  But ...naaaaa, it's easier to just make - fake crap up and stir the toilet bowl and stomp the members and raise holy hell because you both do it so FUCKING WELL! 

GROW THE FUCK UP!

Fuckwit is a great word isn't it 4ever. I knew it would catch on.

That's funny 4ever...


I saw denial and deflection... and some trying to suggest women politicians are the only ones ever criticised by looks... and how bad and unfair this was as complained by the lefty hypocrites... while proved to be happy to dish out insults to others for their looks...



As well as the same hypocrites complaining about insults towards them while always dishing out insults to others...

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Syl, please read back and don't  play dumb.
You will find out why her looks were mentioned and why - I made the thread about net job not her looks.

Looks and attractiveness are all opinion and subjective and I have no idea WHY I have been attacked for saying I don't think she's attractive?!

Perhaps you can explain it to me?


Halle Berry is muscular and has short hair and she is stunning IN MY OPINION
Michelle Obama is not attractive IN MY OPINION.

So let's see.....what exactly did I say that was so wrong?

Frankly I care not one fucking jot. At least I'm not a hypocrite - I say it how I see it.

Why do you think I'm playing dumb because I express a different opinion to you on this?

You read back Eddie, I haven't attacked you or anyone else on here. I am pointing out that in the media women are treated very differently to men re looks.
I think you are taking this a bit too personally.

Excellent post I agree with all of the above

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

US president would do for one...

And presidents wife is irrelevant in political terms isn't she...?

I mean... she wasn't voted for or elected etc...

So has no political position/power/responsibility etc as such...?

So... Obama’s wife would do... or US presidents wife etc...

Or are you saying that she has a significant democratic political position...?

Deserving of a designated political title and set of responsibilities etc...?

So... as much fair game for looks based criticism and ridicule as you seem to think other politicians are justified targets for...?

Or is it only politicians you don't like who are fair game...?

Hypocrisy anyone...!?

Those are basically secret services acronyms that got out, and the public picked them up.

POTUS = President of the United States
FLOTUS = First lady of the United States
SCOTUS = Supreme Court of the United States  

They are easier to use than "Obama's wife" or "first lady".  

A far as is she fair game?  I guess anyone is fair game if you are nasty enough, tommy.  I think the point is that in politics any criticism of her is irrelevant...and, well, just being nasty because that's the way you are (speaking generically).

Me???


Criticism of politicians when criticism is due is never irrelevant!!!



But where have i been criticising any politicians because of their looks here on this thread or anywhere on this forum...!!!???



It is the lefties here who are regularly dishing out looks based criticism... but then trying to argue that some should be free from this... mainly for claimed reasons of racism or sexism... all in the name of equality mind!!!

Can't say that I have seen any lefties on here dishing out crticism that Donald Trump, Nigel Farage or anyonr else for that matter is effeminate,,,,,,,,have you?

That's a hell of a long way fron criticising someone's hair style isn't it?

Original Quill wrote:I think the point is that in politics any criticism of her is irrelevant...and, well, just being nasty because that's the way you are (speaking generically).

Tommy Monk wrote:Me???

Tommy, I took great pains to add "speaking generically", meaning I was not singling you out.  And how do you take it? The narcissistic force is strong with this one, Padawan.

An Englishman that doesn't speak English is a rare bird, but you are certainly taking flight.

Tommy Monk wrote:Criticism of politicians when criticism is due is never irrelevant!!!

Ahah, but criticism of a politician's wife, merely because of her marriage, is irrelevant when the discussion is about politics.  Pay attention!

Tommy Monk wrote:But where have i been criticising any politicians because of their looks here on this thread or anywhere on this forum...!!!???

Michelle Obama is not a politician.

Tommy Monk wrote:It is the lefties here who are regularly dishing out looks based criticism... but then trying to argue that some should be free from this... mainly for claimed reasons of racism or sexism... all in the name of equality mind!!!

And look how you don't understand the English language, you apply comments to the wrong person, and completely misunderstand what is being said...and we are supposed to listen your opinions about lefties, or anyone?  Clean it up Tommy, and then perhaps we'll take you seriously enough to listen.