Is Obama a Marxist?

You guys are entertaining as hell! You never let the facts stand in the way of the bull shit story you want to tell. Originally Posted by bigtex

Are you saying Jim Jones wasn't a communist? Did you even bother to watch the video? By the way, what color is the sky in your world?

Nonsense. You obviously misused the word. Dearth means a shortage, something in scarce supply. There's no way the word makes any sense in the context you used it. It's meaning is contrary to the point you were trying to make. Don't give me some sort of tortured, convoluted pretzel logic explanation of how it makes sense.

You also misspelled created. I'm pretty sure it's not spelled "creatd" or was that intentional too?

You make yourself vulnerable to nitpicking because you are the world's worst nitpicker. Originally Posted by joe bloe

+1

The one legged democrats ain't doing to good in this ASS KICKING CONTEST. LOL

The one legged democrats ain't doing to good in this ASS KICKING CONTEST. LOL Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

To be fair, successfully defending Obama against the charge of being a Marxist is an impossible task; but the lefties are certainly making a spirited attempt. What their arguments lack in logic is more than made up for with an abundance of hate, anger and lies. As I mentioned in a prior post, "the worst are full of passionate intensity" It's actually the truthfulness of the accusation that really makes the leftists furious. At some level, I think they know Obama is a dangerous radical. The evidence supporting the accusation is overwhelming. The left can deny the obvious conclusion, but that doesn't mean they don't know it's true.

Watching the leftist nutjobs react to the accusation of calling Obama a Marxist gives me a sense of deja vu. It reminds me of the way the Islamists overreact to any insult to their religion, real or imagined. A couple of Korans get burned by accident, and they go completely berserk.

To be fair, successfully defending Obama against the charge of being a Marxist is an impossible task; Originally Posted by joe bloe

Proving a negative usually is.

but the lefties are certainly making a spirited attempt.

Of which i'm disappointed. Frankly, i don't think the accusation merits discussion.

Watching the leftist nutjobs react to the accusation of calling Obama a Marxist gives me a sense of deja vu. It reminds me of the way the Islamists overreact to any insult to their religion, real or imagined. A couple of Korans get burned by accident, and they go completely berserk.

Per wikileaks:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Just throwin' that out there.

Proving a negative usually is.



Of which i'm disappointed. Frankly, i don't think the accusation merits discussion.



Per wikileaks:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Just throwin' that out there. Originally Posted by Doove

Wikipedia is not good enough for you. No, you got to use wikileaks. FUCK

Wikipedia is not good enough for you. No, you got to use wikileaks. FUCK Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Oops.

Proving a negative usually is.



Of which i'm disappointed. Frankly, i don't think the accusation merits discussion.



Per wikileaks:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Just throwin' that out there. Originally Posted by Doove

You say proving a negative is impossible. I think most peope believe that a presumption of innocence is appropriate in the case of a serious charge such as this. In a court of law the prosecution has the burden of proof. They have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence attorney does not have to prove his client innocent (proving a negative). However, if the evidence against his client is overwhelming and he can not refute it, his client will go to jail.

You're not required to prove a negative. But if credible charges are made against a sitting president that make him unfit to serve, his supporters have an obligation to refute them it they can.

Can you site any SPECIFIC innacuracy in my post? Originally Posted by joe bloe

Don't you mean "cite" instead of "site" (go ahead and attempt, like when COG was "defended" by Hanky, to try to use the word site as a verb and show your stupidity since that verb ONLY refers to placing something on a site) and shouldn't "innacuracy" have one "n" and three "c"s? (inaccuracy)

All of that in your first sentence disqualifies you as having anything else worth reading in the post.

Correct that, the rest of your post and the errors brought out by numerous other posters' sources and I'll contemplate reading it.

Are you saying Jim Jones wasn't a communist? Originally Posted by joe bloe

We can lead Joe Bloe and his horse to water but we can't make them drink!

Don't you mean "cite" instead of "site" (go ahead and attempt, like when COG was "defended" by Hanky, to try to use the word site as a verb and show your stupidity since that verb ONLY refers to placing something on a site) and shouldn't "innacuracy" have one "n" and three "c"s? (inaccuracy)

All of that in your first sentence disqualifies you as having anything else worth reading in the post.

Correct that, the rest of your post and the errors brought out by numerous other posters' sources and I'll contemplate reading it. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

On his best day, he is a mental midget!

Don't you mean "cite" instead of "site" (go ahead and attempt, like when COG was "defended" by Hanky, to try to use the word site as a verb and show your stupidity since that verb ONLY refers to placing something on a site) and shouldn't "innacuracy" have one "n" and three "c"s? (inaccuracy)

All of that in your first sentence disqualifies you as having anything else worth reading in the post.

Correct that, the rest of your post and the errors brought out by numerous listed by other posters' sources and I'll contemplate reading it. Originally Posted by Little Stevie

So, Obama's not a communist because I used site instead of cite? That's your defense? You seem to have a real DEARTH of imagination. It seems to me that even you could have CREATD a better argument. Your only means of making an argument is to run Spellcheck. You never attack liberals for imperfect spelling. Apparently, their credibility has nothing to do with spelling skills. You're a joke.

You're not required to prove a negative. But if credible charges are made Originally Posted by joe bloe

Read that a few times. It'll come to ya.

against a sitting president that make him unfit to serve, his supporters have an obligation to refute them it they can.

On an escort review board? Don't really think so.

Little Stevie is the self appoint grammar and spelling police.
Must be one of those faggot English teachers that drools over the little boys.

So he is related to the Dunhams, like Jeff Dunham, my bet is he is not the ventriloquist but the DUMMY Originally Posted by The2Dogs

like this one?

like this one? Originally Posted by cptjohnstone

Exactly correct, and those of you that don't think this piece of shit Soros isn't pulling the strings, need to take your heads out of your butts. I'm surprised the Brits didn't put a bullet throught his fucking forehead.