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

Irn Bru wrote:

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?

Trump was recently ridiculed for the size of his PENIS by Ben, sassy and I.


But because of your real bad case of blind-bias, this is pretty much why I now give your opinions a wide berth.
And because you're rarely here, this post will slip by "unnoticed"......

Darn it!

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...!?

Don't attempt to drag me into a tit for tat game of name calling, I'm simply not interested in forum games, TM, it's not what I'm about.

The only way you could get evidence of "hypocrisy" on my part is to conjure it up in your head, you will not see any evidence in my posts because I make a genuine effort to balanced.

The stuff I posted in this thread were facts, btw. Not opinions.

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...?

Tell you what, you call her whatever title you want and I will do the same, that way we're both happy, rather than you telling me what you think I should call her.

The title I will use for her is the same one I have used for every other presidential wife before her -"first lady" ... or flotus as some call it nowadays.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:

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'...

With forensic work of course photos need to be accurate and completely unedited.

But for anything else, I see no reason why the snapper cannot do some editing. The editing tools are there for a reason!!

Eg he / she can make a blurred pic more clear. Like I said, so long there is no grand deception, it's ok by me.

eddie wrote:Trump was recently ridiculed for the size of his PENIS by Ben, sassy and I.

I don't know if penis size is an accusation of effeminacy any more than of age or maturity.  Because we run away from the subject, probably for religious reasons, people are sooo confused about sex and sexual metaphors.

I think the real message is that Trump is not man enough to get the job done.  Criticizing penis size was popular in the 1960's, where it was felt that big businessmen used their leverage and didn't really have the "stuff" within them to take on big jobs or take the fight.  I think it's a sexual metaphor, with a legitimate point.  

Metaphors are not disqualified simply because they borrow from    reproductive organs to symbolize potency. How often do you hear, he doesn't have the balls to complete that job!? He's a "pussy" is commonplace, meaning he is meek and feckless. And the pejorative metaphor, he's a swinging dick, is well-known to mean he's a real man.

Right over your head.

eddie wrote:Right over your head.

More likely: hammer, nail...head!

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Right over your head.

More likely: hammer, nail...head!  

I don't think you even know where the hammer is on this thread.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

More likely: hammer, nail...head!  

I don't think you even know where the hammer is on this thread.

You are angry, and you have been reduced to insulting anyone and everyone on this thread. As intriguing as it is to watch, why don't you take a break from this discussion. When you are reduced that low, and it's gone on for two days, it's...well, pathetic.

Original Quill wrote:

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.

I think it is you who maybe have trouble reading... I have not been criticising Mrs Obama's looks or that of anybody else in the political sphere...


But Mrs Obama is definitely in a political position in the political arena as being 'the first lady' etc...

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

More likely: hammer, nail...head!  

I don't think you even know where the hammer is on this thread.

You are angry, and you have been reduced to insulting anyone and everyone on this thread.  As intriguing as it is to watch, why don't you take a break from this discussion.  When you are reduced that low, and it's gone on for two days, it's...well, pathetic.

I'll give up when I'm really bored. Nearly there.

And it's okay to be angry. I've allowed you to be angry lots of times. We are all human Quill.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are angry, and you have been reduced to insulting anyone and everyone on this thread.  As intriguing as it is to watch, why don't you take a break from this discussion.  When you are reduced that low, and it's gone on for two days, it's...well, pathetic.

I'll give up when I'm really bored. Nearly there.

And it's okay to be angry. I've allowed you to be angry lots of times. We are all human Quill.

I'm bored now. Surely you won't mind if I duck out...unless there's more??

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



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?

The op was about her previous employment position and the massive pay rise she was alleged to have got right after Mr Obama was elected president...


Politicians and those closely linked to politicians are regularly scrutinised over their financial dealings/arrangements... and rightly so!!!


She is not exempt from this for being a woman, black, married to president of US, or because some people on the internet have said they think she looks a bit 'manly'...


And it was those on here who complained about the latter looks based criticism, who are quite happy to dish out and laugh at looks based criticism of others they don't like!


That is where the hypocrisy argument came in... and there were examples given...


One of the false claims was that it was always men criticising women on looks but never the other way round!


While the examples I gave were all of women criticising men on their looks...


Farage - finger up bum and looks like he likes it.

Michael howard - looks like something of the night about him.

Torys in general - look too male and too pale.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are angry, and you have been reduced to insulting anyone and everyone on this thread.  As intriguing as it is to watch, why don't you take a break from this discussion.  When you are reduced that low, and it's gone on for two days, it's...well, pathetic.

I'll give up when I'm really bored. Nearly there.

And it's okay to be angry. I've allowed you to be angry lots of times. We are all human Quill.

I'm bored now.  Surely you won't mind if I duck out...unless there's more??

Of course you can duck out. Just ignore me. Most people do.....

Tommy Monk wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

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?

The op was about her previous employment position and the massive pay rise she was alleged to have got right after Mr Obama was elected president...

Politicians and those closely linked to politicians are regularly scrutinised over their financial dealings/arrangements... and rightly so!!!

She is not exempt from this for being a woman, black, married to president of US, or because some people on the internet have said they think she looks a bit 'manly'...

She pretty much is exempt, in this country. It's considered déclassé to criticize the family and private lives of politicians. Hell, most people didn't even know that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in a wheelchair.

The rationale is that they haven't involved themselves, and thus haven't invited criticism.

Tommy Monk wrote:And it was those on here who complained about the latter looks based criticism, who are quite happy to dish out and laugh at looks based criticism of others they don't like!

That is where the hypocrisy argument came in... and there were examples given...

One of the false claims was that it was always men criticising women on looks but never the other way round!

While the examples I gave were all of women criticising men on their looks...

Farage - finger up bum and looks like he likes it.

Michael howard - looks like something of the night about him.

Torys in general - look too male and too pale.

There's no hypocrisy in distinguishing between those who chose to be in the fight, and those who do not. Michelle is a housewife, dedicated to raising her two children. Are you against family values?

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm bored now.  Surely you won't mind if I duck out...unless there's more??

Of course you can duck out. Just ignore me.  Most people do.....

Hahaha...with good reason.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm bored now.  Surely you won't mind if I duck out...unless there's more??

Of course you can duck out. Just ignore me.  Most people do.....

Hahaha...with good reason.  

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

The op was about her previous employment position and the massive pay rise she was alleged to have got right after Mr Obama was elected president...

Politicians and those closely linked to politicians are regularly scrutinised over their financial dealings/arrangements... and rightly so!!!

She is not exempt from this for being a woman, black, married to president of US, or because some people on the internet have said they think she looks a bit 'manly'...

She pretty much is exempt, in this country.  It's considered déclassé to criticize the family and private lives of politicians.  Hell, most people didn't even know that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in a wheelchair.

The rationale is that they haven't involved themselves, and thus haven't invited criticism.

Tommy Monk wrote:And it was those on here who complained about the latter looks based criticism, who are quite happy to dish out and laugh at looks based criticism of others they don't like!

That is where the hypocrisy argument came in... and there were examples given...

One of the false claims was that it was always men criticising women on looks but never the other way round!

While the examples I gave were all of women criticising men on their looks...

Farage - finger up bum and looks like he likes it.

Michael howard - looks like something of the night about him.

Torys in general - look too male and too pale.

There's no hypocrisy in distinguishing between those who chose to be in the fight, and those who do not.  Michelle is a housewife, dedicated to raising her two children.  Are you against family values?

Mrs Obama is in a highly political position as first lady and uses it as the political platform it is when going about and doing events and speeches.


Just like when she pops up in London going round (only certain) schools with high numbers of black/ethnic pupils and doing speeches there... not as any old regular housewife would be allowed to do...!


And although if a white first lady had toured round only white schools and telling the pupils how great they were, she would have been condemned as 'racist'... but a black first lady going round to only black schools doing this is somehow not 'racist'...?


And the fact that she was only addressing girls not deemed sexist either...


It's a funny old game with the 'equality' lark...!!!



But main point being that she is most certainly highly political and highly in the political sphere so should not be free from scrutiny.

Nobody is bloody free from scrutiny. People need to accept that they are scrutinising others all the time in every debate that includes "people"!

Sometimes, attitudes simply flummox me.

eddie wrote:Nobody is bloody free from scrutiny. People need to accept that they are scrutinising others all the time in every debate that includes "people"!

Sometimes, attitudes simply flummox me.

That's true, it's how we decide whether we like someone, how we choose our friends and partners...if we don't look and prejudge people all our lives would be very different.
I agree with what you were saying yesterday, it's hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

My point that seemed to get lost in all the angst was that women are judged on their looks alone no matter where they are no matter what they are doing...MUCH more than men ever are, and oftentimes it's women who are doing the judging.

I was just reading this story...singer Stacey Solomon is criticised for having saggy boobs....she has two kids, is on a family holiday, has not become famous by flaunting her face or body...yet pics of her was splashed all over the paper leading others to make disparaging remarks about her....stories like this are online and in every tabloid every day.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3758138/Stacey-Solomon-defends-bikini-body-Loose-Women.html

Yes I agree with you. I know women get trashed a lot - it happened to me in an office full of women because I dated the "handsome" boss (it wasn't agaisnt the rules and he turned out to be an possessive idiot).

But if someone asks me a question I will NEVER, EVER, lie.

eddie wrote:Yes I agree with you. I know women get trashed a lot - it happened to me in an office full of women because I dated the "handsome" boss (it wasn't agaisnt the rules and he turned out to be an possessive  idiot).

But if someone asks me a question I will NEVER, EVER, lie.

Not lie no....but sometimes tact can play a part.
And I doubt you would go online and run someone down for their looks like some do on Twitter and facebook.
I always imagine people who do that to perfectly nice looking women (and to a lesser extent men) are bloody hideous themselves.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes I agree with you. I know women get trashed a lot - it happened to me in an office full of women because I dated the "handsome" boss (it wasn't agaisnt the rules and he turned out to be an possessive  idiot).

But if someone asks me a question I will NEVER, EVER, lie.

Not lie no....but sometimes tact can play a part.
And I doubt you would go online and run someone down for their looks like some do on Twitter and facebook.
I always imagine people who do that to perfectly nice looking women (and to a lesser extent men) are bloody hideous themselves.

No I wouldn't deliberately hound someone and I am not always tactful, but sometimes I can't be bothered to pussy around and mince my words.
I don't play games, I get to the point. If you ask, I will answer.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes I agree with you. I know women get trashed a lot - it happened to me in an office full of women because I dated the "handsome" boss (it wasn't agaisnt the rules and he turned out to be an possessive  idiot).

But if someone asks me a question I will NEVER, EVER, lie.

Not lie no....but sometimes tact can play a part.
And I doubt you would go online and run someone down for their looks like some do on Twitter and facebook.
I always imagine people who do that to perfectly nice looking women (and to a lesser extent men) are bloody hideous themselves.

No I wouldn't deliberately hound someone and I am not always tactful, but sometimes I can't be bothered to pussy around and mince my words. Tact is useless sometimes.

I don't play games, I get to the point. If you ask, I will answer.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Not lie no....but sometimes tact can play a part.
And I doubt you would go online and run someone down for their looks like some do on Twitter and facebook.
I always imagine people who do that to perfectly nice looking women (and to a lesser extent men) are bloody hideous themselves.

No I wouldn't deliberately hound someone and I am not always tactful, but sometimes I can't be bothered to pussy around and mince my words.  Tact is useless sometimes.

I don't play games, I get to the point.  If you ask, I will answer.

But isn't that what most of us are like Eddie?

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Nobody is bloody free from scrutiny. People need to accept that they are scrutinising others all the time in every debate that includes "people"!

Sometimes, attitudes simply flummox me.

That's true, it's how we decide whether we like someone, how we choose our friends and partners...if we don't look and prejudge people all our lives would be very different.
I agree with what you were saying yesterday, it's hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

My point that seemed to get lost in all the angst was that women are judged on their looks alone no matter where they are no matter what they are doing...MUCH more than men ever are, and oftentimes it's women who are doing the judging.

I was just reading this story...singer Stacey Solomon  is criticised for having saggy boobs....she has two kids, is on a family holiday, has not become famous by flaunting her face or body...yet pics of her was splashed all over the paper leading others to make disparaging remarks about her....stories like this are online and in every tabloid every day.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3758138/Stacey-Solomon-defends-bikini-body-Loose-Women.html

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/06/lucy-mangan-david-cameron-fat


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10260698/David-Cameron-goes-topless-on-Polzeath-beach-in-Cornwall.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520437/Thomas-The-Tank-Engine-friends-surprising-political-lookalikes-.html

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Not lie no....but sometimes tact can play a part.
And I doubt you would go online and run someone down for their looks like some do on Twitter and facebook.
I always imagine people who do that to perfectly nice looking women (and to a lesser extent men) are bloody hideous themselves.

No I wouldn't deliberately hound someone and I am not always tactful, but sometimes I can't be bothered to pussy around and mince my words.  Tact is useless sometimes.

I don't play games, I get to the point.  If you ask, I will answer.

But isn't that what most of us are like Eddie?

Hmmmm. Some. Not most. Certainly not all.
I think some people allow their bias towards others, blind them, I think some on here, don't like confrontation so they won't always be honest, and some, play to the camera.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

That's true, it's how we decide whether we like someone, how we choose our friends and partners...if we don't look and prejudge people all our lives would be very different.
I agree with what you were saying yesterday, it's hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

My point that seemed to get lost in all the angst was that women are judged on their looks alone no matter where they are no matter what they are doing...MUCH more than men ever are, and oftentimes it's women who are doing the judging.

I was just reading this story...singer Stacey Solomon  is criticised for having saggy boobs....she has two kids, is on a family holiday, has not become famous by flaunting her face or body...yet pics of her was splashed all over the paper leading others to make disparaging remarks about her....stories like this are online and in every tabloid every day.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3758138/Stacey-Solomon-defends-bikini-body-Loose-Women.html

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/06/lucy-mangan-david-cameron-fat


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10260698/David-Cameron-goes-topless-on-Polzeath-beach-in-Cornwall.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520437/Thomas-The-Tank-Engine-friends-surprising-political-lookalikes-.html

Tommy, those links are from 2012 and 2013.....I am talking of women being put down EVERY DAY in the tabloids and online.
Also...as the first two articles are about the extra weight Cameron was sporting, I think that's a fair comment.
This is the man who got fatter whilst the people of the country he was governing got thinner.
Check how food banks multiplied, how many more families needed to use them whilst his waistline spread.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

But isn't that what most of us are like Eddie?

Hmmmm. Some. Not most.  Certainly not all.
I think some people allow their bias towards others, blind them, I think some on here, don't like confrontation so they won't always be honest, and some, play to the camera.

Well you can often avoid confrontation and still be honest....not everyone wants to log on and delve into rows.
I do agree that some (a few) people like to play games.....most, in my experience anyway, are genuine, upfront and not two faced (that's my pet hate)

Having said that though /\.....it depends on what mood I am in whether I find most people nice or not online.

Sometimes it's better to just log off than be dragged into a pointless row.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2012/jan/06/lucy-mangan-david-cameron-fat


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/10260698/David-Cameron-goes-topless-on-Polzeath-beach-in-Cornwall.html


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2520437/Thomas-The-Tank-Engine-friends-surprising-political-lookalikes-.html

Tommy, those links are from 2012 and 2013.....I am talking of women being put down EVERY DAY in the tabloids and online.
Also...as the first two articles are about the extra weight Cameron was sporting, I think that's a fair comment.
This is the man who got fatter whilst the people of the country he was governing got thinner.
Check how food banks multiplied, how many more families needed to use them whilst his waistline spread.

Oh give it a rest...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520910/It-s-XXXXXXXXL-UK-obesity-crisis-sweeping-Britain-laid-bare-demand-soars-8XL-80-INCH-waistbands.html

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

But isn't that what most of us are like Eddie?

Hmmmm. Some. Not most.  Certainly not all.
I think some people allow their bias towards others, blind them, I think some on here, don't like confrontation so they won't always be honest, and some, play to the camera.

Well you can often avoid confrontation and still be honest....not everyone wants to log on and delve into rows.
I do agree that some (a few) people like to play games.....most, in my experience anyway, are genuine, upfront and  not two faced (that's my pet hate)

Syl. I rarely get angry on here. I let a lot of things go. Believe me.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well you can often avoid confrontation and still be honest....not everyone wants to log on and delve into rows.
I do agree that some (a few) people like to play games.....most, in my experience anyway, are genuine, upfront and  not two faced (that's my pet hate)

Syl. I rarely get angry on here. I let a lot of things go. Believe me.

I have been here long enough to know you do, I was speaking generally.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Tommy, those links are from 2012 and 2013.....I am talking of women being put down EVERY DAY in the tabloids and online.
Also...as the first two articles are about the extra weight Cameron was sporting, I think that's a fair comment.
This is the man who got fatter whilst the people of the country he was governing got thinner.
Check how food banks multiplied, how many more families needed to use them whilst his waistline spread.

Oh give it a rest...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520910/It-s-XXXXXXXXL-UK-obesity-crisis-sweeping-Britain-laid-bare-demand-soars-8XL-80-INCH-waistbands.html

No you give it a rest....you refuse to see the truth.

Food banks have multiplied....more families need to use them, the Con government have made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Cameron (him of the six holidays a year) got fatter and redder and good riddance to him.

Obesity of the general public is a different problem.
Many people live off what they consider is cheap food....all the processed crap....sugar is piled into everything....mothers don't have time or cant be arsed to cook proper meals, lifestyles have changed and many families don't ever sit down and have proper meals together, all that adds to the obesity problem.

That doesn't detract from the fact that food banks are needed more now than ever....this is in my area, other areas are just as bad.

http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/100368047-food-bank-flood-numbers-across-greater-manchester-relying-hand-outs-soar-%E2%80%93-salford


"Food bank flood: Numbers across Greater Manchester relying on hand-outs soar – with Salford up 450%

10 Mar 2014 - 06:16AM | By Charlotte Court.


The number of people being referred to Greater Manchester food banks has spiked in the last year – with Salford seeing a 450% increase, according to new figures."

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

She pretty much is exempt, in this country.  It's considered déclassé to criticize the family and private lives of politicians.  Hell, most people didn't even know that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in a wheelchair.

The rationale is that they haven't involved themselves, and thus haven't invited criticism.



There's no hypocrisy in distinguishing between those who chose to be in the fight, and those who do not.  Michelle is a housewife, dedicated to raising her two children.  Are you against family values?

Just like when she pops up in London going round (only certain) schools with high numbers of black/ethnic pupils and doing speeches there... not as any old regular housewife would be allowed to do...!

And although if a white first lady had toured round only white schools and telling the pupils how great they were, she would have been condemned as 'racist'... but a black first lady going round to only black schools doing this is somehow not 'racist'...?

And the fact that she was only addressing girls not deemed sexist either...
It's a funny old game with the 'equality' lark...!!!

I saw her visiting  buckingham palace and downing street on telly, but I did not know she visited schools too, do you follow her activities that closely, TM?

Maybe she was INVITED by the school head mistresses to give motivational speeches to brown pupils, to inspire them, and realise that someone of their colour can reach the top echelons in life?  Obviously she does not need to go to white schools and tell the pupils that someone white could be a president one day - that has already happened hundreds of times, nowt new.

One of her biggest projects is promoting the education of 62 million women all world who have education denied to them. That is what she was singing about in James Corden's suv.  I imagine these are mostly Muslim women and isn't it a good thing if such women get an education and become enlightened, shed their burkas and outdated religious ideas? The whole world will benefit enormously.

No need to attach bad agendas to everything people do, lighten up.

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Oh give it a rest...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520910/It-s-XXXXXXXXL-UK-obesity-crisis-sweeping-Britain-laid-bare-demand-soars-8XL-80-INCH-waistbands.html

No you give it a rest....you refuse to see the truth.

Food banks have multiplied....more families need to use them, the Con government have made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Cameron (him of the six holidays a year) got fatter and redder and good riddance to him.

Obesity of the general public is a different problem.
Many people live off what they consider is cheap food....all the  processed crap....sugar is piled into everything....mothers don't have time or cant be arsed to cook proper meals, lifestyles have changed and many families don't ever sit down and have proper meals together, all that adds to the obesity problem.

That doesn't detract from the fact that food banks are needed more now than ever....this is in my area, other areas are just as bad.

http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/100368047-food-bank-flood-numbers-across-greater-manchester-relying-hand-outs-soar-%E2%80%93-salford


"Food bank flood: Numbers across Greater Manchester relying on hand-outs soar – with Salford up 450%

10 Mar 2014 - 06:16AM | By Charlotte Court.


The number of people being referred to Greater Manchester food banks has spiked in the last year – with Salford seeing a 450% increase, according to new figures."

A Labour legacy...

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Just like when she pops up in London going round (only certain) schools with high numbers of black/ethnic pupils and doing speeches there... not as any old regular housewife would be allowed to do...!

And although if a white first lady had toured round only white schools and telling the pupils how great they were, she would have been condemned as 'racist'... but a black first lady going round to only black schools doing this is somehow not 'racist'...?

And the fact that she was only addressing girls not deemed sexist either...
It's a funny old game with the 'equality' lark...!!!

I saw her visiting  buckingham palace and downing street on telly, but I did not know she visited schools too, do you follow her activities that closely, TM?

Maybe she was INVITED by the school head mistresses to give motivational speeches to brown pupils, to inspire them, and realise that someone of their colour can reach the top echelons in life?  Obviously she does not need to go to white schools and tell the pupils that someone white could be a president one day - that has already happened hundreds of times, nowt new.

One of her biggest projects is promoting the education of 62 million women all world who have education denied to them. That is what she was singing about in James Corden's suv.  I imagine these are mostly Muslim women and isn't it a good thing if such women get an education and become enlightened, shed their burkas and outdated religious ideas? The whole world will benefit enormously.

No need to attach bad agendas to everything people do, lighten up.

She was invited as a regular housewife would be...?


Or was she there because of her political position as 'first lady'...?


And no uk kids either black/brown/white could be president unless they were usa born citizens...


Just admit it... she was only interested in black females... because she is a racist and a sexist!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

No you give it a rest....you refuse to see the truth.

Food banks have multiplied....more families need to use them, the Con government have made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Cameron (him of the six holidays a year) got fatter and redder and good riddance to him.

Obesity of the general public is a different problem.
Many people live off what they consider is cheap food....all the  processed crap....sugar is piled into everything....mothers don't have time or cant be arsed to cook proper meals, lifestyles have changed and many families don't ever sit down and have proper meals together, all that adds to the obesity problem.

That doesn't detract from the fact that food banks are needed more now than ever....this is in my area, other areas are just as bad.

http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/content/100368047-food-bank-flood-numbers-across-greater-manchester-relying-hand-outs-soar-%E2%80%93-salford


"Food bank flood: Numbers across Greater Manchester relying on hand-outs soar – with Salford up 450%

10 Mar 2014 - 06:16AM | By Charlotte Court.


The number of people being referred to Greater Manchester food banks has spiked in the last year – with Salford seeing a 450% increase, according to new figures."

A Labour legacy...

Fantasist.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:

I saw her visiting  buckingham palace and downing street on telly, but I did not know she visited schools too, do you follow her activities that closely, TM?

Maybe she was INVITED by the school head mistresses to give motivational speeches to brown pupils, to inspire them, and realise that someone of their colour can reach the top echelons in life?  Obviously she does not need to go to white schools and tell the pupils that someone white could be a president one day - that has already happened hundreds of times, nowt new.

One of her biggest projects is promoting the education of 62 million women all world who have education denied to them. That is what she was singing about in James Corden's suv.  I imagine these are mostly Muslim women and isn't it a good thing if such women get an education and become enlightened, shed their burkas and outdated religious ideas? The whole world will benefit enormously.

No need to attach bad agendas to everything people do, lighten up.

She was invited as a regular housewife would be...?


Or was she there because of her political position as 'first lady'...?


And no uk kids either black/brown/white could be president unless they were usa born citizens...


Just admit it... she was only interested in black females... because she is a racist and a sexist!!!

Yes I know, and everyone already knows that you cannot be  US president if born outside the US.

That's what Trump's wild birthist rants were all about innit?

But I used it as an example of underprivileged kids aiming for high goals in life - lawyers, teachers, athletes..

Just try and think outside the box sometimes, instead of patrolling threads all day shouting "racist, sexist" at people lol.

Tommy Monk wrote:She was invited as a regular housewife would be...?

Or was she there because of her political position as 'first lady'...?

What is the difference?  The status of first lady has no standing in the US, other than the coincidence of one's marriage.  There is no Office of the first lady (heck, it's not even capitalized).  Looks like you are trying to bootstrap your way into an argument by inventing meanings.

Tommy Monk wrote:And no uk kids either black/brown/white could be president unless they were usa born citizens...

Just admit it... she was only interested in black females... because she is a racist and a sexist!!!

Sorry tommy, the only argument you have made is 'you believe it, yourself'.  You don't even load the question very well.

She may have paid special attention because the kids are deserving of special attention.  In this country we have father/daughter day in schools, and kids bring their father to tell the class what they do for a living.  Are these kids being racist because their father is the same color?  Is the school being racist for sponsoring such an event?  You see how absurd your argument is?

Now, how many black, female prime ministers has the UK had?  Perhaps they need a little boost...a little pepping up to get going.  Who better to do it than a strong, black sister who has familiarity (but is not herself) with power?

We always form an opinion on people's looks that's just  how it is.

I like her smile but I do agree she does look a bit like a transvestite.

Some women have male features and vice versa!

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



She was invited as a regular housewife would be...?


Or was she there because of her political position as 'first lady'...?


And no uk kids either black/brown/white could be president unless they were usa born citizens...


Just admit it... she was only interested in black females... because she is a racist and a sexist!!!

Yes I know, and everyone already knows that you cannot be  US president if born outside the US.

That's what Trump's wild birthist rants were all about innit?

But I used it as an example of underprivileged kids aiming for high goals in life - lawyers, teachers, athletes..

Just try and think outside the box sometimes, instead of patrolling threads all day shouting "racist, sexist" at people lol.

But these are all kids of all the hard working and highly skilled and well needed immigrants who we are constantly told are being allowed to come here... aren't they...!?

To me, she's a beautiful woman. But maybe I"m more secure than most. She is a highly talented, well-proportioned--and with a gorgeous smile--individual, who has loads of charm and humor to her personality. That's a lot of competition to those without such talents.

As with her husband, she may be the best that has ever occupied the position.

SEXY MAMA wrote:We always form an opinion on people's looks that's just  how it is.

I like her smile but I do agree she does look a bit like a transvestite.

Some women have male features and vice versa!

Thank you!

You were never afraid to colour outside the lines and make a mess of your picture.

She has a very nice smile, I agree, because it's genuine.

Original Quill wrote:To me, she's a beautiful woman.  But maybe I"m more secure than most.  She is a highly talented, well-proportioned--and with a gorgeous smile--individual, who has loads of charm and humor to her personality.  That's a lot of competition to those without such talents.

As with her husband, she may be the best that has ever occupied the position.

The highlighted bit....it doesn't make sense to me.
Why would someone be more or less secure than anyone else just because their idea of beauty is different to yours?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:To me, she's a beautiful woman.  But maybe I"m more secure than most.  She is a highly talented, well-proportioned--and with a gorgeous smile--individual, who has loads of charm and humor to her personality.  That's a lot of competition to those without such talents.

As with her husband, she may be the best that has ever occupied the position.

The highlighted bit....it doesn't make sense to me.
Why would someone be more or less secure than anyone else just because their idea of beauty is different to yours?

Do you really not know what he meant? He says it all the time.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

The highlighted bit....it doesn't make sense to me.
Why would someone be more or less secure than anyone else just because their idea of beauty is different to yours?

Do you really not know what he meant? He says it all the time.

I haven't seen him say ti before, if he is implying that it's insecurity or jealousy to not find another woman beautiful, it makes no sense.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

The highlighted bit....it doesn't make sense to me.
Why would someone be more or less secure than anyone else just because their idea of beauty is different to yours?

Do you really not know what he meant? He says it all the time.

I don't think I've said that before.  There's never been a thread like this, and my comment is definitely related to the context of this thread.

I think Michelle Obama threatens the ego of many conservatives, not related to competitive femininity as you may think Syl, but because she is uber perfect and is a model of LW grace and demeanor.  The fact that she is black adds fuel to the fire for those with a racist bent, but not everyone.

I'm in her camp, so she is no threat to me.  For my money, she is an elegant first lady, and she has chosen as her spouse a man of intelligence, leadership, style and astuteness, surpassed by no president ever.

I tend to agree with you Quill, and as I've said, I think she'd have made a better president IMO.

Edit yes I thought you meant what Syl explained ^^^