Barack Obama Is A Liar

I had a teacher at LSU that broke me up from using that everyone knows crap. I'm so glad that happened. Thanx to Huey Long!

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, I'm serious. And you are right, a sixth grader would know that Barack Obama is full of sh*t.

 

That's right. Obama is full of sh*t and he knows it. He's just engaging in political deceit. I wonder if that is something he learned at Harvard.

 

Not bad there madame!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

He not only said she was more qualified than himself, he said she was the most qualified ever. That is just total bullsh*t.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh please. Stop making excuses for that bullsh*t.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh it was not idiotic. What is idiotic is to believe that Obama DID NOT engage in a deliberate act of deception. I have demonstrated why this is so.

- - - Updated - - -

Excellent post!!!!

 

I'm not going to engage in that exercise. The point is that Obama engaged in a deliberate act of deception when he made that statement. He is a known liar.

 

And you just demonstrated a very small comprehension of English. I did not say the poster was stupid. I said the proposal that calling an opinion a lie was stupid.

Arguing that the expression of an opinion constitutes a lie is stupid.

As demonstrated by the absolute twisted logic of your failed response.

 

Colin Powell's statements made on his famous televsion program about Iraq's WMD's made despite the fact that he apparently knew the evidence he used in his presentation was flawed and possibly false has disqualified him from ever holding public office.

 

Aw, you read polifact!

 

Using the language a very small comprehension of English was more INTENTIONAL disrespect. You intentionally meant to discredit the poster, therefore you masked your true intentions by starting off by using the words "with respect." Therefore your post started off on the note of deceit.

What is stupid, and I mean to reciprocate your disrespect by using stupid, is to believe that Barack Obama did not know when the President of the United States stands up before the whole world and declares that someone is the most qualified person for the office of President of the United States that it will be taken as fact by many. It's plain stupid to believe otherwise. Therefore Barack Obama, the President of the United States, engaged in a deliberate act of deception by making that statement. It's a big fat lie.

Absolute? Twisted? More disrespectful fail.

 

So what is your point?

You're supporting Donald who is a "pathological liar" according to leaders of his own party and can't get through a day without lying again. He's lied far more often and far more times than Clinton and Obama combined.

So lying can't be that big of a deal to you, or you wouldn't be supporting Donald.

So what is your point?

 

So exactly what do you consider Clark's qualifications to be?

 

Hmmm

You may be right. If he actually knew that those statements where false, you are right.

 

Can you read? I clearly stated the point.

 

Here's some stuff from Wiki

I suppose I was impressed by responses that Clark gave in very heated, difficult interview with Amy Goodman. He didn't try to deflect. He appeared to be doing his best to give truthful, sound answers to some very difficult questions that were put in front of him.

That's to be brief.

That said, I don't agree with him on everything, but he is someone who, like James Baker, that even when you don't disagree with him, he at least makes good sense and you can live with what he is doing.

I'd be interested in hearing what is your take on Clark.

 

Well then, why are you making such a point.

You start a thread claiming Obama lied, but you support a man who is a pathological liar.

You obviously don't care about lying, because you support Trump.

You obviously don't care about qualifications, because Trump has zero qualifications.

So the only thing I can see is you once again baselessly bashing Democrats while giving a bye to Republicans despite their worse positions.

Seems to be thing with you.

 

Really? You don't think the GOP president having an approval rating the 20's when the election took place might have played a role in the (D) winning? lol

 

What I care about, is the US being led into a nuclear war. That is just what Hillary Clinton is going to do. Therefore I am calling out Obama on this deceit.

Get it?

I have stated many times that my SOLE reason for supporting Trump is because he has at least expressed a willingness to repair our relations with Russia. On the other hand, Hillary has chosen to demonize Putin with the Hitler label. She is not going to back off. Its going to lead the US into a very nasty nuclear war. That is my concern.

Of course you don't care anything about what I have just said. But there it is for anyone that cares to listen.

- - - Updated - - -

That had something to do with it as well. That said, he got the D nomination in large part due to him being black.

 

I agree that Obama is a known liar and engages in deliberate deception. I just do not think your lie was that powerful.

Here is a much bigger lie. Obama (and Hillary for that matter) has been covering up the fact that he was providing sophisticated military equipment to extremist Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda/Al Nusra to fight a proxy war in Syria.

This is part of the reason they will not name the terrorists as that will lead a path right to his doorstep.

Obama is somewhat correct in saying "Islamic Terrorism/Extremism" is not the correct term. It is way to general.

The proper term is Saudi inspired Sunni Wahhabi Islamic Extremism: Taliban, Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, Salafi, ISIS, Boko Haran, Al Shabaab, extremists in Pakistan and India ... all have one thing in common .. Wahhabi Extremism.

Saud has been exporting and supporting this brand of Strict Sharia loving Islamic extremism for decades. The Rebel Opposition in Syria is inspired by this same brand of Wahhabism and are united in wanting "Strict Sharia" to be the law of the land in Syria. It is the fight against secularism that is the "Call to Jihad".

The Syrian people fighting these Jihadists do not want "Strict Sharia". Syria was a Secular Muslim nation with religious freedom. Christian Churches and people able to practice their religion openly. (Unlike our good Saudi friends where there are not non Islamic Churches and one can not practice anything but Islam in the open).

Assad had Christian Generals in his army. In Syria there was drinking and dancing in Bars (unlike Saud where alcohol is banned). In Syria women could drive cars and wear short skirts (Unlike Saud). In Syria there were no religious morality police all over the place enforcing what ever law they figured applied (stopping a fellow playing a musical instrument in a park for example) unlike totalitarian Saudi Arabia.

That these Strict Sharia loving extremists are "moderates" is a massive lie. That we are on the side of freedom is a massive lie. We have been arming and supporting the forces of evil. The same people who went on to join ISIS and form a caliphate. These people have stinger missiles (one of which was probably already used to down a civilian airliner in Egypt). No worries, I am sure we will see more civilian aircraft downed by weapons provided to terrorists by Obama.

Now THAT ... is a lie worth outing and shouting from every rooftop.

 

Good points!

That said, we are getting ready to put a known warmonger in the White House who is going to lead the US into a nuclear war. Therefore I found it necessary to call Obama out on that one.

 

I think Hillary is greater liar---a better liar---than Obama.

Time to pass the torch.

 

No. Donald has called for greater prolification of nuclear weapons and has not disclaimed using them.

Donald, who demonstrates the maturity of a 4 year old flying into a rage at every perceived slight, is a far more danger in terms of nuclear weapons. And it certainly is not just me that thinks so.

But in this thread you bashed Obama for supposedly lying.

Yet you support Donald, who is a pathological liar.

That's what I don't get.

Repair relations with Russia?

This is a guy who just expressed his utter ignorance of the fact that Russia invaded and has troops in the Ukraine.

So tell us, what's Donald's plan to improve relation with Russia? Cede the baltic states to Putin?

Sure I care.

But I am wondering why you felt it necessary to dodge again and go off topic instead of responding to my question about why you're bashing Obama for supposedly lying when you yourself support a pathological liar.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither one comes close to the "pathological liar" Donald.

- - - Updated - - -

Tell us the basis for your assertion that Clinton is a "warmonger" and "going to lead the US into a nuclear war."

The stench of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) is thick.

 

To watch the people who can't defeat me in a debate come up with stupid responses.

Case in point.

 

I do not think we need to go as far as nuclear war speculation which leads to another big lie and "necessary Illusion". Hillary/Obama are part of the establishment. Worshipers of the Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster that runs this country.

The establishment hates the constitution - individual rights and freedoms. They are using regulations and tax law (combined with negligible enforcement of anti competition and price fixing laws on the books) to cripple the free markets and reduce citizens to a form of indentured servitude. The establishment is trampling on rights and freedoms and increasing police powers towards a more totalitarian society.

It is important to note that both Red and Blue establishment are indistinguishable in this effort. Two sides of the same coin differing only in some social policies to keep the raging masses confused and voting for either Red or Blue. (This is why for example the abortion issue has not been resolved, why Blue does not make good arguments and settle the issue once and for all)

The use of fear to take away rights and freedoms is an age old trick. The founders knew this trick well.

Ben Franklin - "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security"

Stalin knew these tricks well and pretty much wrote the textbook using fear to introduce "Security for the Motherland"
Hitler followed suit calling his program "Fatherland Security" you should already be able to see where this story leads.

Bush did the same thing using - fear of a foreign threat- to introduce Homeland Security. This plan was concocted during his fathers administration who realize that the sheep would never accept such reductions in freedom and wrote that some major event was needed. 911 was such an opportunity.

We are now told that it is our "Patriotic duty" to give up essential liberty. "Patriot Act".

In an equally Orwellian doublespeak Obama change the name to the "Freedom Act". Here we have a Constitutional Lawyer and self professed civil rights defender telling us:

"If we want increased security we have to give a little" Compare to the words of Ben ! This was Obama's justification for defending the NSA's illegal spying on all US citizens.

On one hand we have Obama arming and supporting the terrorists. Then on the other hand we have Obama telling us that because of the threat of terrorism we must give up our rights and freedoms.

The risk of harm from terrorism to a US citizen is 400 times less than the risk of harm from "Walking". You heard me correctly.

There is no massive army massing at the gates to justify our 1 Trillion dollar annual Total Military Spending. The Russians are not coming anytime soon and if they do there is nothing we can do about it except fire nukes back ending in complete annihilation of both countries so this crazy spend rate still has no point. The 1 Trillion dollar annual feed rate of the Military head of the multi-headed Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster needs to be justified somehow. Fear Fear Fear !!.

Everyone who is in on the game is getting paid.. There is no "Star Chamber" no "Cabal". The monster is the natural outcropping of self interest and greed.

Make it into congress and insider trading is legal. You (or your buddy) can sit on a committee awarding contract to ABC company and legally invest in that company before the news hits the streets. Frick and Frack "I Want In on that Game" . Is a license to print money.

Sure from time to time there is a lone voice or two speaking out against this obviously nefarious practice. Everyone then points to that voice and says Look Look !! We have freedom of speech in this country !!. That voice is then quickly drowned out by the cacophony on the take. And can you blame them.. I sure as heck would not be giving up the Golden Goose. Would you ? If so you are a better man than me.. and the vast majority of others.

The natural outcropping of self interest and greed !. We have Generals interviewed on MSM (mainstream media) touting war. The network conveniently forgets its journalistic standards and does not tell us that ... OH ... BTW .. General so and so is a paid lobbyist for some defense contractor.

The bureaucracy and the oligopoly have merged into one ugly monster where both have grown very large.

Every time some tax law or regulation is being made the Oligopoly is sitting at the table (and they should have a right to be there). The problem is that the person representing "we the people" is often in the pocket of and/or influenced by the Oligopoly. The Monster does not win every table but, over time, table after table, the rules of the game get skewed in favor of the Monster to both increase the size of Gov't and decrease competition.

The military is only one example. The monster is a multi headed beast. Another major head is healthcare. Energy is another. Almost every sector now has massive oligopolies that are (with the help of bureaucracy) regularly bending the consumer/worker over and giving it from behind.

I am just getting started but this post is long already so I shall stop.

 

Hillary is way more qualified to be president in terms of her experience. Lying is certainly a requirement to be a ruthless leader, to look a woman in the face and smile while you know her town is about to be bombed but you can’t say anything because it might let the enemy know you have broken their code. She has had more experience than Obama, probably including eliminating witnesses and bribing their wives with appointments of their new husbands, wiping intel with a cloth, and scandal survivability better than Teflon. If anyone knows how to create a Machiavellian sex scandal so the prince can raid the treasury for special programs or do illegal things off the radar it is Hillary. She can rob from the rich and enslave the poor and the poor and the rich will vote for her. She could Wag the Dog and use cluster bombs and have Code Pink and the Fabian Socialist Cotter Pin’s vote of approval. She could wage an endless lukewarm “liberal” war that kills half a million children and make every bleeding heart liberal say we are at peace. You can’t get any better than Oil for Food. Terrorism will simply be a nuisance, and any attacks will always be someone else’s fault maybe going back two administrations. She could ban guns while sitting at a desk looking like Warren Burger with a shotgun, ban freedom of speech to insult the official prophet while “liberal” English teachers the world over scratch their heads trying to define the word “others” so they can claim “others” doesn’t include Satan. There is nothing outside of her experience.

There is simply nobody more qualified, Machiavelli would be in awe of such a prince as Hillary.

 

My take is very simple. A military career is not a good preparation for running the richest most powerful nation on earth. And an undistinguished military career makes that an even worse choice.

 

But Trump already told us he is the ultimate insider and member of the establishment. Thanks for another rational reason for disqualifying him from being President.