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

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

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 definately 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.

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.

The comments (at the start of the thread) about her attractiveness or lack of was to do with her physical appearance though, I don't think the off the cuff remarks were in relation to her politics, colour  or marriage....just the way she looks.

So.....I don't see any insecurity there in saying that she is less than good looking.

My own opinion is she is attractive, but no doubt someone I personally find pug ugly is a real beauty in someone elses eyes.

edit...I see the misunderstanding has been cleared up already....note to self...type faster.

Grandiose generalizations made by the Mod/member that started this entire debacle by bringing in a pompous arsed lying blogger {but she asked us what we thought} as her source for poking at the resume of FLOTUS and when that was refuted for it's lack of FACTS and TRUTH {by numerous members} Eddied fell back on just attacking FLOTUS on her appearance   to which that brought out even more rejoinders pointing out that many of US didn't think the same thing!

And when that didn't garner Eddie the accolades that she demanded this was her knee-jerk post that started the entire festering pustule that has lead to 3 days of community disruption and many topics being pulled into her angst and shit fest! 

**********************************
Re: David Icke on Michelle Obama - does he have a point?
 by eddie on Wed Aug 24, 2016 2:49 am

Syl wrote:Re looks....it's inevitable that a woman in the public eye has her looks judged in a way that men never do.
Theresa Mays appearance  has come in for some real criticism just as Michelle Obama's has.
Odd how pug ugly men can sail through their political careers and no one ever comments on their shoes or rate their facial attractiveness as being found wanting.

Oh do shut up sassy and Syl. Trump has been completely slagged off for his looks as has Farage and Cameron.....

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!

Hell, I don't even dislike her but I'm also not so totally brainwashed and brainfucked by glossy media that paints her as pure as the driven snow either.
***********************************

And then you created an entire topic about HYPOCRITES just for 3 of us from this one thread. 
But you don't hold grudges
But you don't seek revenge
But you don't get angry
But you don't become overly sensitive
But you don't misconstrue/misread/become confused or FORGET
But you don't break community RULES and abuse your moderation powers

This thread op was about her alleged massive questionable pay rise after Mr Obama became president... not about her looks!

Tommy Monk wrote:

This thread op was about her alleged massive questionable pay rise after Mr Obama became president... not about her looks!

Which just proves my point that you tried to trash....that a womans looks are always dragged into things no matter what she does.

The first person to bring up her attractiveness was you Syl, and I disagreed with you.

My first few posts stuck to the topic.

Once my post about my thinking she's wasn't attractive hit the fan the shit followed.

Now, if this topic is done, I will chuck it in the basement.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:

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...!?

Not at all, these deprived kids are the offspring of refugees and asylum seekers, not skilled migrants.
The kids of skilled immigrants (doctors etc) grow up to be skilled too and remain in the upper social classes and do not make the news at all. They have no reason to !!!

News reporting is always skewed .... by its very nature.
I's up to readers/viewers 'unskew' it, in order to get a sense of perspective.

magica wrote:Doesn't bode well that Michelle did that kind of job. What does that say about her as a person.

Also doing the rounds is many think she's a man! I kid you not. I'm not buying into that one lol.

This was the first post on this thread after the op... and the first post to mention Mrs Obama's looks.


Blame 'magica'... whoever that is...!?


Or was it a deliberate attempt to divert the thread away from proper scrutiny of Mrs Obama's alleged questionable cash bung...!?

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


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...!?

Not at all, these deprived kids are the offspring of refugees and asylum seekers, not skilled migrants.
The kids of skilled immigrants (doctors etc)  grow up to be skilled too and remain in the upper social classes and do not make the news at all. They have no reason to !!!  

News reporting is always skewed .... by its very nature.
I's up to readers/viewers 'unskew'  it,  in order to get a sense of perspective.

Rubbish!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

magica wrote:Doesn't bode well that Michelle did that kind of job. What does that say about her as a person.

Also doing the rounds is many think she's a man! I kid you not. I'm not buying into that one lol.

This was the first post on this thread after the op... and the first post to mention Mrs Obama's looks.


Blame 'magica'... whoever that is...!?


Or was it a deliberate attempt to divert the thread away from proper scrutiny of Mrs Obama's alleged questionable cash bung...!?

Well I knew I wasn't the first one to mention her looks.
Magica is a lovely poster Tommy, she has been around for ages on other forums, new to this one and not known to many here either.
Major, Rags, HT and I have posted with her before though, and I'm sure we will all agree she is lovely.

I'm not done yet, I want to make one last point ....

Tho her shoulders are broad don't forget she has VERY broad hips too. If she had narrow  shoulders with those overly-broad hips she'd look like a pear. She goes in and out like a figure 8 shape and there's nowt manly about a figure 8.

She has  comparable  (or even better) shoulder-to-hip proportion inch for inch,  than Victoria Beckham, for example

Tommy Monk wrote:

Jules wrote:

Not at all, these deprived kids are the offspring of refugees and asylum seekers, not skilled migrants.
The kids of skilled immigrants (doctors etc)  grow up to be skilled too and remain in the upper social classes and do not make the news at all. They have no reason to !!!  

News reporting is always skewed .... by its very nature.
I's up to readers/viewers 'unskew'  it,  in order to get a sense of perspective.

Rubbish!!!

Lol very constructive, TM. News is skewed. Ordinary stuff does not make news. Only dramatic stuff does.

OK deffo done here.

Thanks to eddie for a thought provoking thread!

I would say your arguments are far from being 'well constructed'... more 'fabricated'... and knocked together from a shallow mix of lefty propaganda, speculation and waffle...!!!


It was only a few posts ago that you were claiming to be totally unaware of Mrs Obama's two rounds of visits and speeches to only black girls in only a few schools in London...


Now you are trying to assert your superior knowledge of these 'visits' and of the background of all the pupils at each school...!?


Bit of a turn around here isn't it...!?


Maybe you could post up some of your sources for the sudden enhanced knowledge and expertise you have on all this...!!!???


And then explain why she only wanted to talk to black girls and not black boys or any other non black girls or boys...?


As your point about her having some campaign about getting education for girls in 3rd world countries doesn't wash... as the girls in London were all in school...

Tommy Monk wrote:I would say your arguments are far from being 'well constructed'... more 'fabricated'... and knocked together from a shallow mix of lefty propaganda, speculation and waffle...!!!

 You idiot, tommy.  She said "very constructive", not "well constructed."  Is this your English problem again, Mr. Englishman?  

@ Jules: Yes, I don't understand those who claim she is not absolutely stunning.  She's a tall woman (very popular these days), with a well-proportioned figure.  Beautiful smile.  And such a pleasant personality.

All-in-all, pretty good packaging, for a first lady.  Not since Jackie Kennedy have we had one quite like that.

Tommy Monk wrote:I would say your arguments are far from being 'well constructed'... more 'fabricated'... and knocked together from a shallow mix of lefty propaganda, speculation and waffle...!!!

Nowt wrong with speculation.. It isn't against newsfix rules. Every opinion offered by a member  on whatever subject involves speculation,   based on observations, general knowledge and life experiences. It's the only time you get to use the cognitive part of your bonce.

If  all we ever did on here was post facts backed up with links then all we're doing is regurgitating parrot fashion - you don't get to engage your own thought process in any way.

"Propagada?"  After all the propanda you spout yourself I wouldn't  be too hasty in chucking that accusation around.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Maybe you could post up some of your sources for the sudden enhanced knowledge and expertise you have on all this...!!!???

Oh dear.
I take it you completely missed the impassioned and spirited conversation Mrs O.  had with JC before they all sang that second song about ''all my girls.'' ?
That is where I got all my information from, including the figure of "62 million uneducated girls". I fabricated nowt!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I would say your arguments are far from being 'well constructed'... more 'fabricated'... and knocked together from a shallow mix of lefty propaganda, speculation and waffle...!!!

 You idiot, tommy.  She said "very constructive", not "well constructed."  Is this your English problem again, Mr. Englishman?  

@ Jules: Yes, I don't understand those who claim she is not absolutely stunning.  She's a tall woman (very popular these days), with a well-proportioned figure.  Beautiful smile.  And such a pleasant personality.

All-in-all, pretty good packaging, for a first lady.  Not since Jackie Kennedy have we had one quite like that.

I hear you Original Quill. Goodnight, sausage. x

I'm in the Twilight Zone.

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.

This was your post Jules...


Then you started posting about the school visits as if you knew all about them as well as the backgrounds of all the pupils involved...


Can you tell us where you got your information from to suddenly be such an expert on it all...!?


Or were you just posting speculative waffle...?

You said you begrudge the fact that she only visited certain schools.

I replied that maybe the headmistresses of those schools invited her, for motivational speeches.

My post comes directly off yours, in a very straightforward way. Offering an opinion is not the same as me saying I'm an "expert", no matter how much you repititively keep saying "expert, expert".

First I thought you were hard work.

Now it's clear you are simply messing about.

So if you plan on doing any more messing about in this thread, you'll be doing it on your own.

Or at least it won't be with me.

He does a great many things on his own.  

Jules wrote:You said you begrudge the fact that she only visited certain schools.

I replied that maybe the headmistresses of those schools invited her, for motivational speeches.
My post comes directly off yours, in a very straightforward way. Offering an opinion is not the same as me saying I'm an "expert", no matter how much you repititively keep saying "expert, expert".
First I thought you were hard work.
Now it's clear you are simply messing about.
So if you plan on doing any more messing about in this thread, you'll be doing it on your own.
Or at least it won't be with me.

Tried & Tested & by Tommykins methods

See, that's the way of his habitual attention seeking habits ...and for those of us that have tried to wade through his    way of derailing topics it becomes so annoying that 'I' /we lose patience with him and just want to    and put him out of our misery.
But then the 'Parachute Packers' will rush into to drop their personal insightful dribbles about his worthiness - even though they never ENGAGE in any conversations with Tommykins, but they feel so enraged if 'I'/we respond to his bilge & asinine name calling with the same rejoinders! 
He has a certain unique protected status here and I'm often the one to call him the 'Village Idiot' ...just because is so suits his demeanor - but that's me being the 'Cruel Old Hag' as I've often been told!
Welcome - your initiation is nearly complete!

Jules wrote:You said you begrudge the fact that she only visited certain schools. (1)

I replied that maybe the headmistresses of those schools invited her, for motivational speeches. (2)

My post comes directly off yours, in a very straightforward way. Offering an opinion is not the same as me saying I'm an "expert", no matter how much you repititively keep saying "expert, expert". (3)

First I thought you were hard work.

Now it's clear you are simply messing about.

So if you plan on doing any more messing about in this thread, you'll be doing it on your own.

Or at least it won't be with me.

1) No I didn't say that at all... I merely pointed out that it was only black girl pupils who she deemed deserving enough to be bothered to address in her selective appearances at London schools.


2) All the schools had head 'mistresses' too now did they...?


3) You went from not even knowing about ANY of her school visits... to then telling us in a matter of fact way that all the pupils she visited were deprived and were also all children of refugees/asylum seekers...!!!


"...these deprived kids are the offspring of refugees and asylum seekers, not skilled migrants..."



Either you know this claim is true and can provide evidence to back it up... or you have just been proven to be making stuff up and lying...!!!???


Which is it...???

Original Quill wrote:
He does a great many things on his own.  

UNFORTUNATELY, one of the things that Tommy doesn't do is to actually THINK his comments through, before posting his ill-begotten opinions on here !!!

The actions of the classic far-right 'reactionary' nutter..

Jules wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I would say your arguments are far from being 'well constructed'... more 'fabricated'... and knocked together from a shallow mix of lefty propaganda, speculation and waffle...!!!

Nowt wrong with speculation.. It isn't against newsfix rules. Every opinion offered by a member  on whatever subject involves speculation,   based on observations, general knowledge and life experiences. It's the only time you get to use the cognitive part of your bonce.

If  all we ever did on here was post facts backed up with links then all we're doing is regurgitating parrot fashion - you don't get to engage your own thought process in any way.

"Propagada?"  After all the propanda you spout yourself I wouldn't  be too hasty in chucking that accusation around.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Maybe you could post up some of your sources for the sudden enhanced knowledge and expertise you have on all this...!!!???

Oh dear.
I take it you completely missed the impassioned and spirited conversation Mrs O.  had with JC before they all sang that second song about ''all my girls.'' ?
That is where I got all my information from, including the figure of "62 million uneducated girls". I fabricated nowt!

TOP youtube clip that, jules...

Here's a rerun, just for poor li'l Tommykins :

https://youtu.be/ln3wAdRAim4

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Jules wrote:

Nowt wrong with speculation.. It isn't against newsfix rules. Every opinion offered by a member  on whatever subject involves speculation,   based on observations, general knowledge and life experiences. It's the only time you get to use the cognitive part of your bonce.

If  all we ever did on here was post facts backed up with links then all we're doing is regurgitating parrot fashion - you don't get to engage your own thought process in any way.

"Propagada?"  After all the propanda you spout yourself I wouldn't  be too hasty in chucking that accusation around.



Oh dear.
I take it you completely missed the impassioned and spirited conversation Mrs O.  had with JC before they all sang that second song about ''all my girls.'' ?
That is where I got all my information from, including the figure of "62 million uneducated girls". I fabricated nowt!

TOP youtube clip that,  jules...

Here's a rerun, just for poor li'l Tommykins  :

https://youtu.be/ln3wAdRAim4

Here's a 'rerun'...?


Jules never posted any link to any clip on this thread!!!


And that clip is supposed to be proof of what exactly...!!!???

Tommy Monk wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:



TOP youtube clip that,  jules...

Here's a rerun, just for poor li'l Tommykins  :

https://youtu.be/ln3wAdRAim4

Here's a 'rerun'...?


Jules never posted any link to any clip on this thread!!!


And that clip is supposed to be proof of what exactly...!!!???

Lol....so quick is he to tag team with someone against you (and I doubt Jules would play ball with him anyway) he got a bit confused.
I posted that video....bet he doesn't appreciate it as much now.

And the clip proves which of Jules's claims exactly...!?

Search me...I posted that clip long before Jules even entered the thread.

Syl wrote:Search me...I posted that clip long before Jules even entered the thread.

Correct, when I entered the thread I saw the video you posted on page 1. It was a great clip of Mrs Obama singing, and also speaking with some passion about how she wanted to do her bit to help bring education to 65 million impoverished girls around the world, who were denied an education and she explained how this would benefit the world at large. And I relayed this information in my post.

In addition I also offered a variety of opinions on a number of issues, as I do believe members are allowed opinions.  

Wolfie also posted the identical you tube clip.  Thanks to both of you.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:Search me...I posted that clip long before Jules even entered the thread.

Correct, when I entered the thread I saw the video you posted on page 1. It was a great clip of Mrs Obama singing, and also speaking with some passion about how she wanted to do her bit to help bring education to 65 million impoverished girls around the world, who were denied an education and she explained how this would benefit the world at large. And I relayed this information in my post.

In addition I also offered a variety of opinions on a number of issues, as I do believe members are allowed opinions.  

Wolfie also posted the identical you tube clip.  Thanks to both of you.

It was '62 million' before...


"...That is where I got all my information from, including the figure of "62 million uneducated girls". I fabricated nowt!..."


That's inflation for you!!!





And still nothing to do with choosing to visit only black girls in only certain London schools... who are already in education!!!


Plus... no proof that all of them are children of refugees/asylum seekers as you also claimed was fact...!!!


Opinion is one thing... speculative waffle and lies presented as fact is another thing entirely!!!

Dp

Mulberry School for Girls.

In 2015 Mulberry School hosted the UK/USA initiative for ‘Let Girls Learn’.

The attendees for the event were:

Mulberry School Headteacher,  Dr Vanessa Ogden

Justin Greening: (Conservative) International Development Secretary

Nicky Morgan; (Conservative) Education Secretary

Michelle Obama: USA First Lady (FLOTUS)

Julia Gillard: Former Prime Minister of Australia and Chairperson of the Global Partnership for Education (GPE)

US Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Matthew Barzun

The pupils and staff of Mulberry School and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School


Dr Vanessa Ogden opened the event with a short speech to welcome and introduce the guests and the speakers.

Speech by International Development Secretary Justin Greening is on the UK Government website and can be read here...

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/justine-greening-education-speech-at-mulberry-school-for-girls

Speech by First Lady Michelle Obama is on the White House website and can be read here...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/16/remarks-first-lady-let-girls-learn-event-london-uk

This was followed by a Q&A session at which First Lady, Michelle Obama and Julia Gillard undertook to take questions from the audience.

Both Mulberry School and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School were inspected and  considered ‘outstanding’ in the last Offsted inspections which is remarkable considering they are situated in areas of high deprivation and the proportion of students eligible for the pupil premium is well above average. This additional government funding is used to support students who are known to be eligible for free school meals and children who are looked after by the local authority.

The inspection reports can be read here...

Mullbery School

http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2262181/urn/100968.pdf

Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School

http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/files/2447618/urn/100457.pdf


This event was important because it is events like that that underpin international efforts to get girls into education because ‘Empowerment of women is the greatest threat to the barbaric practices that take place under the banner of Islam and that's the way to defeat it.’


Read the Offdted reports which tell you about thse schools and support this joint UK/USA initiative - it's important.

And they are all children of asylum seekers/refugees are they...?


And mrs Obama was there as first lady of usa... which some posters here have insisted has no political status...

Tommy Monk wrote:And they are all children of asylum seekers/refugees are they...?

And mrs Obama was there as first lady of usa... which some posters here have insisted has no political status...

Going off into that twirling dervish of your own wild arsed imagination there again Tommykins
 
A. the point has always been - Decent HUMANS {ie Americans} do not make fun/ridicule/poke/humiliate our FLOTUS or the children there of - not until the wives have left office!  We leave them out of the insults and humiliation - it's not their fault they married into the political position!

I've explained that numerous times as has Quill - you and your momma mod just over looked it and ignored WTF we stated

B. she {as the FLOTUS} gets invited to speak - it's what they do as FLOTUS and as her race she's asked to speak to promote not only her gender but as a boost for racial success stories world wide - education and nutrition is something our FLOTUS is very activity involved in; why wouldn't she come to England and speak?

GET OVER IT!

Tommy Monk wrote:


And they are all children of asylum seekers/refugees are they...?


And mrs Obama was there as first lady of usa... which some posters here have insisted has no political status...

No, they are not all children of asylum seekers/refugees and they are not all black children at only Black schools as you suggested.

What do you think of the 'Let Girls Learn' campaign and the academic results attained by the pupils at these schools?

Do you think it is important in the bigger picture that educating these girls is important?

4EVER2 wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And they are all children of asylum seekers/refugees are they...?

And mrs Obama was there as first lady of usa... which some posters here have insisted has no political status...

Going off into that twirling dervish of your own wild arsed imagination there again Tommykins
 
A. the point has always been - Decent HUMANS {ie Americans} do not make fun/ridicule/poke/humiliate our FLOTUS or the children there of - not until the wives have left office!  We leave them out of the insults and humiliation - it's not their fault they married into the political position!

I've explained that numerous times as has Quill - you and your momma mod just over looked it and ignored WTF we stated

B. she {as the FLOTUS} gets invited to speak - it's what they do as FLOTUS and as her race she's asked to speak to promote not only her gender but as a boost for racial success stories world wide - education and nutrition is something our FLOTUS is very activity involved in; why wouldn't she come to England and speak?

GET OVER IT!

I havn't seen that but seen him in the past and you think everything he comes out with is stupid but if you think about it some of it sounds perfectly feasible.
We dont know what's going on that we know nothing about!
I actually have started to like him for some reason????????????????

blackie333 wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
Going off into that twirling dervish of your own wild arsed imagination there again Tommykins
 
A. the point has always been - Decent HUMANS {ie Americans} do not make fun/ridicule/poke/humiliate our FLOTUS or the children there of - not until the wives have left office!  We leave them out of the insults and humiliation - it's not their fault they married into the political position!

I've explained that numerous times as has Quill - you and your momma mod just over looked it and ignored WTF we stated

B. she {as the FLOTUS} gets invited to speak - it's what they do as FLOTUS and as her race she's asked to speak to promote not only her gender but as a boost for racial success stories world wide - education and nutrition is something our FLOTUS is very activity involved in; why wouldn't she come to England and speak?

GET OVER IT!

I havn't seen that but seen him in the past and you think everything he comes out with is stupid but if you think about it some of it sounds perfectly feasible.
We dont know what's going on that we know nothing about!
I actually have started to like him for some reason????????????????

I did to back in Feb. and like the other adults ...well you'll find out!  Just try to engage in a really good conversation!  And I'll smile the entire time! 

4EVER2 wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And they are all children of asylum seekers/refugees are they...?

And mrs Obama was there as first lady of usa... which some posters here have insisted has no political status...

Going off into that twirling dervish of your own wild arsed imagination there again Tommykins
 
A. the point has always been - Decent HUMANS {ie Americans} do not make fun/ridicule/poke/humiliate our FLOTUS or the children there of - not until the wives have left office!  We leave them out of the insults and humiliation - it's not their fault they married into the political position!

I've explained that numerous times as has Quill - you and your momma mod just over looked it and ignored WTF we stated

B. she {as the FLOTUS} gets invited to speak - it's what they do as FLOTUS and as her race she's asked to speak to promote not only her gender but as a boost for racial success stories world wide - education and nutrition is something our FLOTUS is very activity involved in; why wouldn't she come to England and speak?

GET OVER IT!

So you are admitting that Mrs Obama holds a 'political position having married into it'...!?


Thanks for your honesty at last...


So she is therefore no more exempt from scrutiny than any other political figure!!!


And you also suggest that she was invited to speak about black girls getting education in third world countries because...???


Was it...


a) because she grew up in a third world country?
b) because she grew up without education?
c) because of the political position she holds and is a black female?

Tommy Monk wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
Going off into that twirling dervish of your own wild arsed imagination there again Tommykins
 
A. the point has always been - Decent HUMANS {ie Americans} do not make fun/ridicule/poke/humiliate our FLOTUS or the children there of - not until the wives have left office!  We leave them out of the insults and humiliation - it's not their fault they married into the political position!

I've explained that numerous times as has Quill - you and your momma mod just over looked it and ignored WTF we stated

B. she {as the FLOTUS} gets invited to speak - it's what they do as FLOTUS and as her race she's asked to speak to promote not only her gender but as a boost for racial success stories world wide - education and nutrition is something our FLOTUS is very activity involved in; why wouldn't she come to England and speak?

GET OVER IT!

So you are admitting that Mrs Obama holds a 'political position having married into it'...!?
Thanks for your honesty at last...
So she is therefore no more exempt from scrutiny than any other political figure!!!
And you also suggest that she was invited to speak about black girls getting education in third world countries because...???
Was it...
a) because she grew up in a third world country?
b) because she grew up without education?
c) because of the political position she holds and is a black female? 

Now this is when you earn your 'FUCK-WIT' award; twisting members replies around to suit your F'd up lame position because you HAVE NO SOLID FOUNDATION TO STAND on is exactly what you do! 

And it's immature - but it's what you do and then you whimper and whine when the adults stop acknowledging you and put your sorry ARSE BACK ON IGNORE!

ON IGNORE - because you are a FUCK - WIT  100% certifiable FUCK - WIT

You talk shit and when pulled up over it you start crying!!!





Try telling the truth... it stands up to scrutiny...

Judging women's looks?

Just saying.......

They'r out of season Wolfie.

eddie wrote:Judging women's looks?

Just saying.......

To the contrary, that picture is distinguished by the message. The import is their racism, not their appearance.

Yeah. That's what the official story now is.
It's funny you know, but some people take some people's posts, and actually twist them to make them about something else entirely!
And some people, take some people's posts, and rewrite them for them - giving them a new twist!

It depends I suppose, upon how one decides to take another's post?

I guess we could all be a little clearer in our meanings and intentions and also stop reading some posts and inventing meanings and intentions.

At least the hypocrisy might stop.

eddie wrote:Yeah. That's what the official story now is.

I think Sassy made that clear on the other thread:

Sassy wrote:I would take that as you calling them ugly because of the sentiments expressed on their T-Shirts

eddie wrote:It's funny you know, but some people take some people's posts, and actually twist them to make them about something else entirely!
And some people, take some people's posts, and rewrite them for them - giving them a new twist!

And that's what I'm afraid it looks like you're doing now.

eddie wrote:It depends I suppose, upon how one decides to take another's post?

I guess we could all be a little clearer in our meanings and intentions and also stop reading some posts and inventing meanings and intentions.

At least the hypocrisy might stop.

I think that mods, or those blessed with rank and authority should be especially careful in this regard. For example, I don't think mixing messages with threats to "basement" and "ban" are appropriate when you are participating as a sandbox player.

I'm a poster quill.
I warned Wolf as a moderator.

I sought advice and was told we don't accept posters PARACHUTING on to threads simply to attack another poster ( as you rightly pointed out in your other post).  
So because wolf continually does it, he was warned.

I also sought advice and was told, if a poster gets nasty to get nasty back.

So. Hope that clears up your confusion, becasue I won't repeat myself again.

Ps. It wasn't sassy's post I was questioning so that is irrelevant. Thought you were a lawyer?

eddie wrote:I'm a poster quill.
I warned Wolf as a moderator.

I sought advice and was told we don't accept posters PARACHUTING on to threads simply to attack another poster ( as you rightly pointed out in your other post).  
So because wolf continually does it, he was warned.

I also sought advice and was told, if a poster gets nasty to get nasty back.

So. Hope that clears up your confusion, becasue I won't repeat myself again.

Ps. It wasn't sassy's post I was questioning so that is irrelevant. Thought you were a lawyer?

You seem to be quite concerned to get consensus of others. And with good reason. Others do the same "parachuting", only because you never mention it, it doesn't become a matter of record. Specifically, there are some notorious "parachuters" on the RW with which you never seem to have a problem.

I bring in sassy's words because she is a disinterested bystander, who gives the correct interpretation to Wolf's word, honestly, and innocently.

It is apparent--and I'll make it apparent if it is not--that you have a problem with wolf. This, in addition to the casual digs that you make interspersed in your sandbox chatter, again calls into question your fitness for the role of a mod. You seem inevitably to have a view opposed to Wolf every time, and then you end up with threatening him with 'basementing' or 'banning'.

Now, why is that? Hmmm...I wonder. Is it because you are RW and he is LW?