they wont give up

I don't trust Obama. Originally Posted by joe bloe

thats it, democrats deceive purposely.

they neither speak english using words as they are commonly understood nor wish to reveal their true intentions until its too late.

its exasperating to hear them speak for they have redefined words. the casual listener may hear them say something and think yes i agree, but they mean something else.

they have to use this approach with the American people, else if they spoke their true intentions, they would never be elected

obama is one of the best at deception.

what is especially galling now is his adoption of "an all the above" approach to energy and his having approved more pipelines than anyone ever and his administration having the most production of oil deception.

The crazy ramps up as the dreadful realization sets in for the repukes that it's gonna be Romney. Keep it coming ya whackjobs!

thats it, democrats deceive purposely.

they neither speak english using words as they are commonly understood nor wish to reveal their true intentions until its too late.

its exasperating to hear them speak for they have redefined words. the casual listener may hear them say something and think yes i agree, but they mean something else.

they have to use this approach with the American people, else if they spoke their true intentions, they would never be elected

obama is one of the best at deception.

what is especially galling now is his adoption of "an all the above" approach to energy and his having approved more pipelines than anyone ever and his administration having the most production of oil deception. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

You're right. Democrats take delight in lying. For them it's an art form. The best Democrat liar was undoubtedly Bill Clinton. His favorite form of lying was parsing words. (Clintonian parsing). Using words so that people are deceived without technically being lied to. I think it was in a Paula Jones deposition that Clinton uttered the now famous phrase "that depends on what is means".

Very few people understood what Obama really meant when said he was going to "fundamentally transform" the country. That's one of the few true statements he's made. Everyone thought it was just the usual political mumbo jumbo. I'm pretty sure if Obama had said that he was a Marxist and that he intended to destroy our capitalist system so that he could replace it with Marxism/socialism the crowd would not have cheered, well not all of them anyway.

I think Obama gets a kick out of actually occasionally telling little pieces of the truth, knowing full well that people won't get it. I think it's his way of baiting the few people that understand that he's an Alinsky Marxist.

Once again my Patriot Brothers crushed the "OZOMBIES" Thanks!

So you haven't read it... Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No the Globe is like the National Inquirer

Obama is a Kenyan born gay Muslim.

No the Globe is like the National Inquirer Originally Posted by ekim008

the national enquirer pinned john edwards ass to the wall, while the democrat MSM were only lying in wait for republicans

the national enquirer pinned john edwards ass to the wall, while the democrat MSM were only lying in wait for republicans Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

The National Enquirer is more credible than The New York Times. The Enquirer may accidently tell the truth occasionally; The New York Times filters it out.

The National Enquirer treats all kingmakers the same; regardless of their politics.......the NYTs is a sorry piece of left wing propoganda.

The NYTs has become such a joke that serious commentators/analysts seldom quote it as a source any longer.

The National Enquirer is more credible than The New York Times. The Enquirer may accidently tell the truth occasionally; The New York Times filters it out. Originally Posted by joe bloe

john edwards was fingered as consorting with a working girl belonging to the most recent new york city madam in the news and using campaign money to do it with

he vociferously denies same, well, his attorneys do

the poor guy cant catch a break

The National Enquirer is more credible than The New York Times. The Enquirer may accidently tell the truth occasionally; The New York Times filters it out. Originally Posted by joe bloe

.

john edwards was fingered as consorting with a working girl belonging to the most recent new york city madam in the news and using campaign money to do it with

he vociferously denies same, well, his attorneys do

the poor guy cant catch a break Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

If John Kerry had won and Edwards had been VP. I wonder if we would have ever known about his indescretions.

The weird thing about political sexual scandals is that they're pretty equally divided between Democrats and Republicans as far as what gets into the media. I do wonder if maybe all of the Republican stuff is found out and only a small part of the Democrat stuff.

If Monica Lewinsky hadn't kept her little blue dress Clinton would never have been forced to admit that he lied to the American public. The Washington Post and Newsweek initially spiked the Lewinsky story until The Drudge Report broke it. NBC had the video of the interview with Juanita Broderick, detailing her account of being raped by Clinton; they wouldn't put it on the air until Tim Russert insisted on it.

There's no telling what kind of dirt the media has on Obama that we'll never know about.

the national enquirer pinned john edwards ass to the wall, while the democrat MSM were only lying in wait for republicans Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Most people who read these rags live in trailers.

Most people who read these rags live in trailers. Originally Posted by ekim008

Some of the people who post on this site probably rent trailers (single wides).

At this point I think it is a safe bet to assume the worse of Obama (and media)...i.e. he/they lie about his birth certificate, his anti-american views, etc..... Let the media and Obamazombies prove otherwise....keep them on the defensive !