Woodward: Obama White House Initiated Idea of Sequester

[O Really]

Obama was born to a Kenyan father and could have declared Kenyan citizenship at age 21. He IS a Kenyan by blood and birth, making my label that much more accurate, while applying such a label to others as you stupidly suggest would be confusing and unclear...

Mitten was born to a Mexican father and McCain is Panamanian.

If either were president, you would then be free to call them the "Mexican" or the "Panamanian". Neither has as clear a connection to despotism as "kenyan", but if that soothes your tantrum, knock yourself out.

So why is it inherently insulting to refer to Obama as a "Kenyan" - assuming what you say to be true? Or maybe you don't intend it to be insulting and use it as a term of admiration because of your love of the Kenyan people? If you want to insult me, I guess you could refer to me as a "Brit" since my mum was UK born and raised, and as a kid I spent many summers in England with relatives on her side. Oh wait, "Brit" doesn't have the same racial connotation as "Kenyan," does it. Nevermind.

[O Really]

Losing on some recess appointments comes to mind. A despot would have then executed SCOTUS. Partisan62 is a paranoid and frightened wingnut.

Apparently he's not a NASCAR fan, either, or he'd have a better understanding of the expression "If you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'."

[O Really]

Just wondering, Parti - would you categorize Scott Walker as a "despot"?

And do you defend the Dem senators in their obstructionist efforts as "It's not the [Dems} job to go along with every demand from the Governor's Mansion? Hmmmm?

This is a test of your understanding of politics outside of living up to your persona name. This is only a test. Failure is not only an option, it is expected.

[Ombudsman]

...www.wnd.com/2012/08/obama-like-a-banana-republic-despot/

...www.redstate.com/robints/2012/06/20/revealed-despotic-obama/

...www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html

That's just funny as hell.

[Stinger]

...www.wnd.com/2012/08/obama-like-a-banana-republic-despot/

...www.redstate.com/robints/2012/06/20/revealed-despotic-obama/

...www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html

That's just funny as hell.

I don't know. An adult offering up World Nut Daily and American Thinkless as legitimate sources of PROOF is really kind of sad and pathetic.

Of course, if he's a big asshole, it does start to get funny. And the bigger and more pompous the asshole, the funnier it gets, so I see your point.

[O Really]

I don't know. An adult offering up World Nut Daily and American Thinkless as legitimate sources of PROOF is really kind of sad and pathetic.
.

Well, Parti will just come back and complain about "criticizing the messenger" but citing those is about the same as citing a movie.

[Stinger]

I don't know. An adult offering up World Nut Daily and American Thinkless as legitimate sources of PROOF is really kind of sad and pathetic.
.

Well, Parti will just come back and complain about "criticizing the messenger" but citing those is about the same as citing a movie.

Like homerfobe citing Red Dawn:

http://www.blueridgedebate.com/viewtopi ... awn#p14735

[O Really]

Well, just to be clear, it isn't the source itself that makes it laughable. There are lots of trashy publications that can say something true and accurate if they choose to do so. Wasn't it the National Enquirer that accurately outed John Edwards? And isn't TMZ more often right than wrong? But what makes WND (for example) laughable as a credible source is that they never give the actual details of any accusation. If they want to show Obama is a "despot" they're going to need to show that (a) he did something that wasn't within existing law; and (b) got by with it. If it wasn't illegal (and things like issuing regulatory procedures aren't), then by definition it's not despotic. If he didn't get by with it, then the system of "checks and balances" is working. Either way, the sky is still in place and the Devil doesn't walk the earth, they aren't coming to take away your guns, and the US is still a pretty nice place to live.

[rstrong]

But what makes WND (for example) laughable as a credible source is that they never give the actual details of any accusation.

It's far more than that.

What makes WND laughable as a credible source is that they routinely fabricate the details of any accusation. Suppose a government document on handling virus outbreaks contains a single mention that the World Health Organization would be notified by fax, with a phone number they can call for details. The WND headline is "U.S. UNDER U.N. LAW IN HEALTH EMERGENCY", with a tale of how the government has agreed to martial law backed by U.N. troops. That's a real example BTW.

What makes WND laughable as a credible source is that they routinely STUPIDLY fabricate the details of any STUPID accusation. This is of course the WND that endlessly publishes birther claims after that dead horse had been beaten so long it's barely a discoloration on the pavement. Including their "Kenyan Birth Certificate", where the country printed on it didn't even exist at the time among other childish mistakes.

What makes WND laughable as a credible source is that it's unabashedly a source of political smears and lies, whether falsely accusing Democrat fundraisers of being involved in the drug trade (and being successfully sued) or turning the term "Swiftboating" into synonym for lies and character assassination.

It's not a case of them merely not being credible. They are professional liars. Their business is to tell lies.

[O Really]

But what makes WND (for example) laughable as a credible source is that they never give the actual details of any accusation.

It's far more than that.

...
It's not a case of them merely not being credible. They are professional liars. Their business is to tell lies.

Good to know. I've never read anything but occasional links like Parti listed. Always felt like I needed a shower afterwards, though. Now I know why.

[Stinger]

It's far more than that.

What makes WND laughable as a credible source is that they routinely fabricate the details of any accusation.

It's not a case of them merely not being credible. They are professional liars. Their business is to tell lies.

They do it because there's a demand for it. There's this large contingent of Americans that doesn't want to know the facts, doesn't want to deal with reality. They demand Kool Aid. WND and many, many others supply it.

And they make money off of it.

So who gets the blame? The liars for telling the lies, or the intentionally-gullible, willfully-ignorant sheep who demand to be misled?