Hypocritical whining and cultural insensitivity aside, on a GQ level can anyone tell me what oriental cleansing practice he was trying to refer to?
I think he was referencing the struggle sessions of the Cultural Revolution. Maybe he thinks it’s a traditional Asian/Chinese practice. Tai Chi in the morning, public cleansing in the afternoon and a nice jasmine tea before bed.
I thought that was a Communist Party thing and not an Asian or Chinese thing. Wiki on the subject. I know it’s fictional, but A French Village, a TV show set in WWII Occupied France, had the little Communist Party cell spend inordinate amounts of time in their meetings doing, or at least threatening to make someone do, self-assessments. :rolleyes:
This. There are many things to be outraged about that are presently going on. AG lying under oath? Pretty outrageous. Dingbat sits on her feet on a couch? Meh. First Lady visits some kids in a hospital? Doubtful that it is representative of her husbands fight to kill anyone without employer-provided health insurance :rolleyes:
That is pretty funny! 
When she took on the ex-officio role of First Lady of the United States of America and started performing FLOTUS voluntary duties.
Or perhaps you think that her involvement with the hospital garden was unrelated to her FLOTUS role – if so, please cite her involvement in that cause prior to her husband the POTUS taking office, and also explain how she differs from chairs Michelle Obama, Laura Bush, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Bush, Rosalynn Carter, Nancy Reagan, or from patrons Betty Ford, Jackie Kennedy, Edith Roosevelt, Grace Coolidge and Lucy Hays.
She was there performing a traditional FLOTUS role, and by doing so showed herself to be one hell of a hypocrite. I quite agree that she is a mindless moppet, imported but of no import, yes, but she is still one hell of a hypocrite by preaching nature for healing when the POTUS to her FLOTUS is hell bent on trashing access to health care and on trashing the environment.
OK, I’ll “explain how she differs” from the other First Ladies: She does not.
Can you explain how this or any other “traditional FLOTUS role” is an explicit extension of the Executive branch policies of the FLOTUS’ spouse? Because it looks to me like the women you listed are a very diverse set of individuals who were married to another very diverse set of politicians who became Chief Executives. And yet they all did and said very similar things in their traditional roles, even though official policies differed widely among their spouses.
If there’s hypocrisy in the pursuit of these traditional roles, it’s inherent in the tradition, and not in the individual. And if you accept that statement of the broader context, please explain how bromides uttered by any particular FLOTUS are more greatly laden with hypocrisy or more notable than any other.
Perhaps you meant that Mrs. Trump’s remarks were politically unapposite or ironically perpendicular to her husband’s polcies, but you haven’t made any sort of case for personal hypocrisy.
Misdemeanor, no charges filed. Go, and sin somewhat less.
Iowa lawmaker under fire for referring to Sizzler certificate as a “business degree”.
If that wasn’t enough, this Shit For Brains recently gained attention for sponsoring a bill that would freeze faculty hiring at the state’s public universities until the number of professors registered as Republicans was within 10 percent of those registered as Democrats.
:smack: Christ! :smack:
I guess Marie Antoinette wasn’t involved in policy issues when she told the peasants to eat cake, either, was she?
Yes, I know that anecdote never really happened.
See post 37240, on the preceding page.
Which in that sense makes it exactly like the incident where Melania Trump said “Let them rely on natural remedies!”
ETA: If you or Muffin or anyone else can show where Mrs. Trump has ever advocated or campaigned for specific Trump policies or positions regarding public health care, I’ll yield the point on hypocrisy (but not about what was actually said).
nm
Wait a sec, are we talking about regulating the first lady? That’s what *started *this whole stupid thread!
Wow. It’s an ourobouros moment, to be sure.
Wow, are you already on Daylight Savings Postcount?
Meet Nathan Larson, Republican candidate for Virginia State Delegate (weirdly, his campaign website is a Wiki)
Mister Larson’s campaign calls for:
Denying girls public education.
Denying women the right to vote (since they vote for “leftists”)
Allowing families to “marry off” girls at whatever age they want.
Allowing men to have more than one wife.
Allowing fathers to marry their daughters.
Allowing sex between teenaged boys and older men.
Abolition of all forms of welfare, including for dsabilities.
Abolition of Child Protective Services.
Legalizing drugs.
Legalizing child porn.
Legalizing public nudity.
Mr. Larson is a convicted felon, who in 2009 sent a letter to the Secret Service pledging to murder President Obama. He had his voting rights returned under the Virginia restoration of felons’ voting rights.
I suspect he may be a RINO.
How special. He says he is a “red pill libertarian” and goes on to explain that a red piller “… someone who recognizes and is aware of … the dark truths surrounding human sexuality …”
Funny link, that. The second entry (dark truth in a non-game context) is quite the headache-inducing word salad, spoiler-boxed here for your amusement/safety,
[spoiler]Christopher Contrary:
"*The dark truth is that, like intolerance, human touchiness arises naturally from our cognitive limitations. Most people, it is clear, do not consider things disinterestedly, and it may be that they cannot. After all, few of us ever learn to think with much analytical rigor. Meanwhile, bias serves self-interest—the most powerful force in human affairs, as everyday life overwhelmingly displays. So, most people are not objective. Reason serves their particular passion, which they are ever keen to advance. As Francis Bacon wrote in The New Organon: “The human understanding is not composed of dry light, but is subject to influence from the will and the emotions, a fact that creates fanciful knowledge; man prefers to believe what he wants to be true.”
And so it happens that when they contemplate a certain thorny subject, people usually try to confirm an a priori view; regardless of the context or what might be added to their knowledge, they perceive things in a distorting light. They don’t examine the matter analytically and objectively, then make a judgment. They examine it in terms of their ideology. A post-hoc rationalization of their evaluative endeavors, the “truth” is determined by their particular desires. And often they do this unconsciously, thinking they are objective where they are merely biased. They intend to set other people straight, but are in fact quite ignorant.*"[/spoiler]
I have struggled to parse that. Maybe a couple shots of whisky would help?
:smack:
Apologies. 32740.
When Trump was stumping, his present wife was unequivocal: “I support my husband hundred percent.” Since then she has said and done nothing to indicate that she does not support her husband’s long known and frequently addressed extreme positions on health care and the environment, and she has chosen to take on the traditional FLOTUS role vis a vis the Children’s Hospital’s garden without speaking out in support of health care and in support of the environment, ergo she is one hell of a hypocrite.
Now it could be that she supports access to health care and a supports a healthy environment, but is either too stupid to be able to express her feelings, but I don’t think she is that dumb. I take her at her word when she says that she supports her husband one-hundred percent.