Posted on 10/31/2009 5:27:27 PM PDT by kellynla
Click on the link to watch the video
NEVER did I believe he was a Christian. All one has to do is look at that so-called church he went to. Although, I'm not conviced he is not muslim. He certainly could not admit it like Keith Ellison did and it is A-Okay to lie to the infidels. He was raised in islam and communism. Islamo-fascist communist is what he is, IMHO.
Do not miss this Anti-Mullah column!
In fact the two "isms" Communism and Mohammadenism (as the Islamists were named for manu centuries) closely resemble each other in methods of rule by force by an oligarchy of a few (clerics or Kommisars) and suppression of human rights and all freedoms, leaving only obedience, specially for women that would lead to democracy.
As it stands, your last comment has no informative value regarding the content of our discussion. No offense, but it has the appearance of being nothing but a useless game where you imply having access to hard evidence.
But I should point out that I don’t think any less of you for not being a member of Obama’s closest staff—in fact, I think more of you for it.
Nope! I said sKanks!!! LOLOLOLOL
they are MANURE leaguers!
OK, that's kinda funny. ;*)
“He sounds and acts like a European style democratic-socialist.”
So you’re saying he sounds and acts exactly like a hard line Marxist or Maoist would by strategic necessity try to sound and act, while in the process of overthrowing the United States government from within.
sKanks?? I think I’m totally deaf!!!LOLOLOL
Yeah, right, because everyone knows reading people’s eyes is a real reliable way to discern the truth. Nevermind that Obama explained what he meant just a few moments after Steph (mistakenly) corrected him, and that his explanation is perfectly plausible. You haven’t looked at the video I posted at #60, but if you do, you’ll see what I mean.
I was wrong. You did exceed your original absurdity.
No, I think it’s you who isn’t living up to your own standard of providing hard evidence.
It is reliable enough for the FBI to teach courses in it and field agents exclusively schooled in it. But it hardly takes a trained expert to look into someone's face and know when they are lying. You just have to have an ounce of common sense.
Or maybe he just sounds and acts like the European style democratic-socialist that he is.
So, I was right when I said you are taking 0bama's word for it. It is also interesting that you think yourself capable of reading Stephanopolous' mind but no one else can simply see the facial expressions of a liar.
I have seen the whole interview and it adds nothing to this discussion. Too bad you are too lazy to watch the entire video from the OP. But it wouldn't mean anything to you anyway.
Do Denmark socialists threaten the press? Do they threaten executives of industry?
I’ve got several ounces of common sense, and I don’t see it, so you must be wrong. What I do see is Obama giving a perfectly plausible explanation of what he meant. You’ll see what I’m talking about if you look at the video I posted at #60.
There’s no way to know for sure whether Obama has the heart of a tyrant or solely the brain of a useful idiot.
You can only know the answer if you’re David Axelrod. (And if you are, let me just say right here and now I think you’re a big phony, and I don’t like you one bit Mr. Axelrod.)
Otherwise, it’s like I said before—you’re guessing.
Seriously...don't miss that Anti-Mullah column. There is much more in it that I think you would find very interesting.
I'm off for some shut eye. ;*)
Either way, it doesn’t look good for Obama—he’s a monster or an idiot.
He give a plausible explanation and that’s the end of it? You don’t have a gram of common sense.
Look at the video. His explanation is reasonable. I'm only taking his word for it in the sense that when people say reasonable things, I tend to believe them. I'm not reading Steph's mind. After Obama explains himself, Steph accepts the explanation, which means he sees he was mistaken when he corrected him. This stuff isn't about mind reading, it's about being able to follow the conversation even when it's a little bit convoluted rather than jumping to far out conclusions.
I have seen the whole interview and it adds nothing to this discussion.
You need to watch it again because Obama's explanation of what he meant adds much to the discussion.
The absolute experts at giving “plausible explanations” are psychopaths when they’re being interrogated. Or under any circumstance, really.
What does that tell you?
Well, based on the evidence I’ve seen, I think it’s more reasonable to guess that he’s a European style democratic-socialist than a hard line Marxist or Maoist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.