Here's one site, LifeZette, which points out that at the same time that Michelle acts so shocked at Trump's words, she was hosting rap stars who've said far worse -- quite publicly -- at the White House. In fact, Michelle once said that she couldn't think of a better role model for her children than Beyonce.
I won't repeat all the relevant lyrics by Beyonce, Jay Z, Common, Rick Ross, and other invited White House guests here. But I would like to point out that in the midst of all her holier than thou posturing -- and she did go on and on at great length about this -- Michelle did say one thing that rang true:
"I can tell you that the men in my life do not talk about women like this."
That, I believe.
Posts
32 comments:
John,
There has got to be a better word for all this than 'hypocrisy.' We have to make one up. Because hypocrisy just doesn't cut it. But it's all we have.
Another example of hypocrisy is Jamie Lee Curtis, who has just unloaded on the vile, unseemly Donald Trump, for talking dirty about troubled girls on Howard Stern in 2005, using Lindsay Lohan as an example. A Hollywood product and lifelong denizen, shocked, shocked that a then commercial real estate developer (and publicity hound) went on a shock jock show and said vulgar things? Shocked, shocked!
All of Hollywood is for Hillary. Hollywood is Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie. Remember that golden couple? Adopting children of color and doing good around the world?
Read this and laugh. The article is called "Domestic Bliss":
http://www.wmagazine.com/story/brad-pitt-angelina-jolie
"In these remarkably intimate and unguarded portraits, commissioned by W, Pitt captures a week in the life of Jolie and their family at home in the South of France."
Hunh? The children in the pics are fake. All blond, crew cut boys.
We really are living in a very bizarre world, John.
The reality:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/celebrity/brad-pitt-sees-his-children-for-the-first-time-since-angelina-jolie-split/ar-AAiVjgy?li=BBnb7Kz
I think he's sorry he ever met her, and that underneath it all, he wants a relationship with his real children and resents the pound pickups. All of the latter have living parents, by the way, and one day these kids will want to re-establish a relationship with them. That almost always happens.
Puzzled
Puzzled --
How did W get away with that photo? Amazing. And they had the nerve to call the photos "unguarded?" I read a few paragraphs of the puff piece that followed, but had just eaten breakfast, so couldn't continue.
I'm sure you're right about how Pitt feels now. 've long had the impression that Jolie is a sociopath. And all of her recent poses, as UN ambassador of goodwill, etc, make me feel even more certain of it. Sociopaths always have to prove that they're morally superior to the rest of us, when intact the opposite is true. Even her adopted children are part of that pose. A couple generations ago fashionable -- and very vain -- ladies used to get elegant dogs, essentially as props, to enhance their own elegance. These days a certain type of actress -- Sharon Stone, Nicole Kidman, and Angelina -- get kids as props to demonstrate their moral superiority.
She's started out as merely borderline and has now progressed into frank psychopathy. She reminds me more of Josephine Baker than the actresses you cite. I'll leave the rest to you.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/adopting-the-world-josephine-baker-s-rainbow-tribe-a-652613.html
They ended up as sad cases.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/style/jean-claude-baker-son-of-josephine-baker-is-remembered.html?_r=0
You forgot radical leftist Charlize Theron, who has now adopted a black boy (whom she dresses as a girl) and a black girl. Nuts as well.
I really feel kind of sorry for Pitt. Yes, he made his bed, but I still feel that of the two he's the one who is salvageable. I remember seeing them on TV in the early years of their act. It was Christmas and she'd dragged him to some refugee shithole. I think Shiloh was born at that point. He looked miserable and I said to myself, how long can this go on?
I also think that crazy Angie has forced Shiloh into transgenderism and that's the heart of this break up. He's really in a load of shit. If he can hang tough he'll eventually be vindicated, but right now he's being put through the feminist nut-cracker.
I doubt that Pitt will ever be able to come to race realism, though. He influenced his normal sister to adopt two Ethiopian boys. His family is Republicuck.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3800864/How-Pitts-live-Brad-s-sister-adopted-Ethiopian-sons-enjoy-quiet-life-Missouri-unlike-globetrotting-cousins.html
Note: there's a Just Not Said side issue in the above link: Brad Pitt's bio niece is pictured. She's middle-American obese. Now, famous uncle who escaped to Hollywood has a fit, athletic body, and only consorts with the slenderest, most elegantly groomed women. There's a sociological study in that.
It's all nuts, John. If racial masochism was a thing of the Democratic left we could survive it, maybe. But it's spread very deep into the fabric of the society. When you adopt a child into your family, you are telling that child, "marry one of us."
Puzzled
Puzzled --
Ah, yes, Charlize Theron, had forgotten about her. And as the first article you linked reminded me, Madonna and Mia Farrow as well. All have the same ostentatious, preening "morality," and more than a couple of them are sociopaths. And I bet a lot of their brood end up feeling as Josephine Baker's adoptive children did.
As far as Brad Pitt's build goes, he started out pretty skinny, then went on steroids. When I saw "Snatch," I was surprised and positively impressed by his build and athleticism. Then when I saw "Troy," it hit me: ah, he juiced. Back in his "Thelma and Louise" days, at age 28, he was downright wimpy.
I remember the incredibly skinny boy that Pitt was in Thelma & Louise. I also remember the audience reaction. A collective gasp, as in OMG, I'm in love. At least, us girls.
Guys were thinner then. I really can't do my usual link-love, but if you look at any of the major hunks from the 1950s-1980s, it's striking how much thinner they are than now. Esp. in the 50s and 60s.
Puzzled
Puzzled --
I always figured part of the reason females went crazy over that character was that it was implied that he was good in bed. Pitt really lucked out with that role, it put him on the map.
Yes, even looking at the more masculine stars of that era, none were muscular. Even Sean Connery, who'd been third in the Mr. Universe competition in 1953, looked by the time of Dr. No in 1962 as if he hadn't done a sit-up or push-up in the intervening nine years. Of course, these days a lot of the big stars have 'roided up.
I think you'll like this comparison of the Bonds:
http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2011/02/bonds.html
He lucked out, and so did the producers.
How about this for comparison:
http://www.obsev.com/entertainment/who-s-hotter-scott-eastwood-or-young-clint-eastwood.html
Me - Clint wins hands down. I love that look - the lean and tender cowboy. And the commenter who said he was flabby was retarded. He was skinny.
Puzzled
PS Enjoyed your Bond. How do you think Eastwood would have done as Bond? Or Lee Marvin? I loved Lee Marvin. 10 out of 10, IMO.
Puzzled
I'm joking about Lee Marvin as Bond, but not about how hot I thought he was.
Puzzled --
Gotta go with Clint, though with those delicate features he was borderline effeminate-looking in his 20's. He hit his peak in his 30's, when he started to look a little more grizzled. The son is built better, but the father seems to have been more of an actual tough guy.
Puzzled --
Somehow this discussion has morphed from a discussion of Michelle Obama's hypocrisy into a discussion of various guys' looks, but I'll go with it. Clint couldn't have been Bond, he's not a good enough actor to pull off a believable British accent, and you can't have an American Bond.
Lee Marvin was great. Even my son is a fan, Marvin was a Marine during WWII and got a Purple Heart. A man's man, deepest voice ever, and not above making fun of himself. He was fantastic in Cat Ballou. Later achieved a sort of fame as the first man ever to be sued for palimony, a trend which thankfully did not take off.
Apologies - I gave the Brangelina bust up as an example of Hollywood hypocrisy. I really don't follow Hollywood gossip much (really!) but I happened to see an article about his supervised visit w/the kids and it struck me as somewhat relevant.
The Lee Marvin drooling was totally OT. I'll try to stick on topic now, sir.
I just can't say anything more about the hypocrisy than you said. But since Michelle is part of the topic, allow me to unload. She is not merely a hypocrite, she is insufferable, smarmy and smug, and the media are complicit in puffing up this awful woman.
In 2007/8? she gave a smarmy speech to a group of black women, digging at Hillary: if you cannot keep your house in order, how can you keep the White House in order? Remember that? (I happen to agree, but it was a bitchy,low blow. Now they're BFFs?)
And for her to come so self-righteously to Hillary's defense, please, get me the sick bag. Of course I realize it's not Hillary she's defending, it's her husband's legacy and his continued grip on power.
Did you know that the Obamas are going to live in Kalorama? They are not leaving Washington - they have no intention of giving up power.
It's obvious that this trash is being hurled because they can't answer Trump on the issues and because every Wikileaks dump (uncovered by the mainstream press, remember) exposes Hillary for the sociopath she is.
Puzzled and On Topic!
Puzzled --
I was just teasing about getting off topic. I'm happy to discuss movie star's looks or whatever else you want. (And I've talked about that in previous posts.)
Yes, the RNC is not nearly as aggressive as the DNC. The Clinton machine dug ups a bunch of women to say they'd been "harassed" -- true or not -- by Trump. The Republicans would never air similar stories about Hillary and her women friends. At some point, Hillary must have come on to some females who were not interested. Where are they? And yes, the Clinton/Obama rivalry from '08 should be dug up, too, but the RNC doesn't bother. And it was the Clinton campaign in '08 which first broached the topic of Obama not being an American citizen (as it had said on the jacket of Obama's book way back when). And why do the Republicans never dig up stuff about Obama's homosexuality, which is pretty obvious. He's had people on the government payroll (two of his three "body men," plus Kal Penn) who were there for him to have sex with. Why is that not an issue? If he were a Republican it would be front and center.
The reason the Obamas gave for living in Kalorama was that so their daughter's education would not be disrupted. I have a hard time believing that. I had heard they were looking at Hawaii at one point; I'm sure they have no intention of going back to Chicago.
And yes, you're absolutely right, they're trying to keep the spotlight on Trump. Hillary's corruption is overwhelming, and without a constant chorus of, "Oh, he tried to kismet! Horrors!" some of the attention might shift back to her.
The relationship that really should be under the microscope is the one with Huma Abedin.
I mean, WTF? And not the sexual aspects. Really, that's the least of it. Abedin is just weird. Everything about her. But most important, she was raised as a fundamentalist Muslim. It's all strange as hell. Yet no scrutiny.
I'm not saying she's a Muslim fundamentalist. My grand theory is that the globalist cabal is made up of people who have no loyalty to anything other than each other, hence the anti-Catholic statements unearthed by Wikileaks, made by one lapsed Catholic to another.
These people live an easy, wonderful life. Why should they not be loyal to it, and to each other? When your life is spent traveling from the Hamptons to the Upper East Side, to Soho, to Martha's Vineyard, to Kalorama, it's great.
Puzzled and On Topic And Yes I Knew You Were Joking But I Should Still Stick to the Topic
Puzzled --
The media turns a blind eye to anything bad or weird about Democrats, especially when they're running for President, as you know.
Your grand theory is correct. The mere fact that virtually all of the elites, all of Wall Street, all of K Street, all of the multinational corporations, all of the people who stand to benefit from globalization, and most of DC is behind Hillary, tells you everything you need to know about who stands to benefit from her Presidency.
So what's next? Humiliating people who say the wrong thing on Twitter or FB is so yesterday.
Do you know who Ken Bone is? The guy who became Joe Sixpack for about 5 minutes? Turns out he said the wrong thing about Trayvon Martin on Reddit, so he's un-personed. CNN has run more stories about him than Wikileaks.
Then there is this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/10/mind-your-manners-a-white-man-wrote-to-his-black-neighbor-this-was-the-response-2/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na
John - the WaPo article is truly chilling. Anytime a private white citizen so much as speaks up to the black master race, he will be humiliated in public, in one of the major newspapers. I know what it's like to be kept up by a noisy neighbor, in a small apartment. It so traumatized me that I resolved never to live in such a circumstance ever again. But this guy does, and he had to hide from the spotlight, because he was victimized by a noisy black neighbor.
What really really makes me almost irrational, is the smug SOB of a black columnist. Look at that face. Is that a punchable face or what?
AT some point I fully expect private speech like this to be criminalized, John.
Puzzled
Puzzled --
Yes, I followed the Ken Bone saga. All he did was agree with the jury in the George Zimmerman case (and he even pointed out that Zimmerman himself seemed sort of creepy) and now he's villainized for it. There was some other stuff, Bone had left some comments of a sexual nature on Reddit, I read them (and have now forgotten exactly what he said), I vaguely remember them as being honest but not the kind of stuff that gets talked about publicly.
Just read the WaPo article. To me, the most telling thing was that the guy who originally complained had no idea that his upstairs neighbor was black, and that his black neighbor equated the note with "violence," which is utterly ridiculous. And my guess is, given the servile, self-abasing note the white neighbor later left, he would never have complained in the first place if he'd known the guy making the noise was black. Here's that note, for anyone who's curious, from the WaPo article:
“I know this was probably dictated by the tone of my note, but please do not perceive me as just another narrow-minded white p—- scared of anything outside of his little white world,” he wrote back to Brookshire. “I have nothing in common with such people, and I would like to emphasize it once (again) that my note yesterday, rude as it was, was nothing more than a response to a late-night disturbance.”
[On the note, he left his name, his number and his email address and encouraged his neighbor to knock on his door and chat: “You know where we live.”]
The note that the neighbor left was abysmal. But I can't judge him too harshly. He's got a lot to lose. It's comparable to being in debt to the Mafia, except I think that the Mafia was probably more charitable.
By the way, something happened today that illustrates the nature of the war. Kaepernick is playing in Buffalo. He took a knee, and there's a photograph of him looking classy and dignified, with a bunch of white fans chanting USA! USA!, making them look like a bunch of yahoos. Which they probably are. It's depressing.
Puzzled
Puzzled --
True enough, you pretty much have no choice but to grovel these days.
I always find it a little embarrassing when the USA! USA! chants start up at the Olympics. There's no other country that does anything equivalent, and it makes us look like ugly Americans.
My father, a veteran of the Battle of the Bulge, used to turn off the TV whenever USA! USA! happened. It really annoyed him.
Hawkers were selling t-shirts w/Kaepernick in a target. I give up. My side embarrasses me.
Puzzled
Puzzled --
There are embarrassing people on both sides, but that doesn't mean our side isn't right.
Speaking of which, I read today that Trump recently went after Alec Baldwin for his lousy imitation of him on SNL. Why can't he stay on message and be more Presidential? A narcissist with ADHD is just too easy to bait.
"Speaking of which, I read today that Trump recently went after Alec Baldwin for his lousy imitation of him on SNL. Why can't he stay on message and be more Presidential? A narcissist with ADHD is just too easy to bait."
Exactly. He's got the issues. Stick to them, but he doesn't.
I'm getting so tired of all this, I need to take an internet break. It's affecting my mental health.
Puzzled, and Tired
Puzzled --
I've decided the best thing to do for my own mental health is just resign myself to Hillary winning. It'll be four more years of the same, maybe worse, since Hillary's more of a hawk than Obama. But Trump wouldn't have been able to accomplish as much as he'd promised anyway, and it would have been tiring to have to defend him against all of the sniping liberals for four years. (Because he IS a jerk.) Or, so I keep telling myself.
Wow, I've done the exact same thing. In fact, it might end up being a blessing in disguise. Because Trump's personality is so polarizing that half the country would be in a revolutionary state. I think it might be better to let the Dems have power and let them choke on it. Hillary will nto be able to enact her agenda - the world is in too fragile a state. That's my hope.
Puzzled
Puzzled --
My hope is that the House and Senate don't go Democratic, and Hillary is stymied. I'm also guessing that her health problems will hamper her, and we're going to be hearing the name Tim Kaine a lot. That guy is the definition of smarmy, from what I can see he's basically Hillary Lite.
Here's another amazing coincidence. I came across the dead tree version of the NY Times today. The front page was dominated by a huge article about the new crown prince of Saudi Arabia, who is hell bent on modernizing Saudi. Isn't that just amazing, as the revelations of Saudi money are pouring out in Wikileaks? I'm sure that by election day, Saudi Arabia will be Sweden.
I hope there's divided government too, but I don't want the Republican party to the party of Ryan and Romney. I'm hoping that the patriotic/nationalist movement continues. with a better leader, although I'm grateful to Trump for blowing the door down.
Puzzled
Puzzled --
Ha, yes, "amazing coincidence." It is amazing how many of this the NYT seems to have. "Will be Sweden," well put.
Yes, let's hope the Trump movement continues, with a more temperate leader. Paul Ryan is no better than Hillary.
Hi John,
you should take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fssP4Ia_GM. unfortunately it's quite long. But somewhere in the video Scott Adams makes the statement that if Hillary wins this election it will become impossible for another men to become president.
If a male candidate can be brought down by sexual accusations alone, it will be done to all future male candidates. Therefore it is impossible to have another male president. Sounds scary but it makes sense.
I often wondered how people have even sex in modern times. On one hand men have to be assertive to be attractive on the other it will be used to bring them down.
Time to invest in VR porn.
-Sebastian
Sebastian --
That's an over two hour video, I'll take your word for it. But yes, this whole thing is ridiculous, and when the election is over, and Hillary has won, a certain measure of sanity may prevail, and people will analyze what the accusations are about, and realize how silly it all was. But, I guess we can't expect the mainstream media to do that.
Anyway, you just put an idea in my head, I'm going to write a post along the lines of "What exactly is an 'unwanted sexual advance'?"
Thank you for that idea.
Not that I'm looking forward to a Trump Presidency, but I am hoping that Clinton doesn't win the election. I definitely don't want Clinton and all those Democrats to get what they want, HRC in the WH. She doesn't deserve to be there. This election cycle has been a whirlwind, unlike any time that I've witnessed in my lifetime. We need a leader (Trump can be this person, although I do have reservations) to put a halt to the destruction of our country. If anything positive has occurred during this election cycle, many people are waking up to and becoming aware of how corrupt our politicians, the media, etc. are, that they can be quite self-serving and deceitful (as they try to steer us toward a NWO). I guess you could say, many of our leaders are wolves in sheeps clothing.
- Susan
My only question that remains is, if those of us who actually read this stuff for what it is actually go out and vote against this nonsense, will it even matter? Will they bus loads of posers to get "100%" poll reporting on the other side? Will we be able to defeat all the lies, sociopathy, hypocrisy and just nonsense? That's the only reason I'm heading to the polls next week.
Susan --
I agree, Hillary doesn't deserve to be president. But to quote Clint Eastwood from "Unforgiven," "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." The Dems are going all out with their dirty tricks, and it's probably too much. Plus they have an easy target in Trump, who gets distracted by every insult, every false accusation. I'm pretty much resigned at this point.
Runner Katy --
I'm afraid the answers to your questions are, yes, they will bus loads of voters to the polls (multiple times), and no, our votes won't make much difference.
Post a Comment