Stinger wrote:Well, without the Muslim mind meld, I just can't come up with a way.
Did anyone else here ever deal with a wingnut so dumb that they claimed Obama used hypnotic methods in his speech? I dealt with a couple. They even had a crackpot source that they believed like it was the Bible, Vol. II. You can't blame the foolers on that one. It's the foolee's fault.
oh shit! I just put - Obama used hypnotic methods in his speech - into the google
these idiots - how do people get so stupid?
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”
THE EVIDENCE IS HERE: This document contains over 40 pages of evidence and analysis proving Barack Obama’s use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of “hack” hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans, and reveals what only a few psychologists and hypnosis/NLP experts know. Barack Obama’s speeches contain the hypnosis techniques of Dr. Milton Erickson, M.D. who developed a form of “conversational” hypnosis that could be hidden in seemingly normal speech and used on patients without their knowledge for therapy purposes.
THE EVIDENCE IS HERE: This document contains over 60 pages of evidence and analysis proving Barack Obama’s use of a little-known and highly deceptive and manipulative form of “hack” hypnosis on millions of unaware Americans, and reveals what only a few psychologists and hypnosis/NLP experts know.
The comments are like way too funny
Freepers have noticed this since the primaries. It also helps that George Lakoff is one of Obama’s speechwriters and consultants. Someone needs to rewrite this as more an academic sounding versus conspiratorial sounding paper- it will hit undecided voters better.
It's the cadence that is so hypnotic...it keeps you from concentrating on the message and the fact there isn't one.
No Vred, you are dumb about "our team". Since when does the NRA speak for all the right and what % of NRA members think that Obama will come after their guns.
Nice try on dodging your post that mocked the way blacks talk.
O'R it's your thread and you are of the legal persuasion. So what's the answer or is there one?
Reality wrote:...O'Really (sic), do you have any believable data to back up all your talk that right wingers, other than extremist, believe that Obama is going to take their guns?...
Are you calling much of the gun owning right extremist?...
It's everywhere. The sky is blue, too. Do you need "believable data" before you'll accept it?
O Really wrote:Not that anybody has brought it up, but everyone does know that the "United Nations Arms Trade Treaty" would have no - zero - nada - zilch bearing on US Second Amendment rights. References are abundant.
Yep, "Reality" is even ignorant about his own team.
"Obama's Gonna Take Our Guns!" is just a marketing ploy by the NRA and guns/ammo sellers, they understand the gullibility of their clients.
Reality wrote:No Vred, you are dumb about "our team". Since when does the NRA speak for all the right
I did not post "all the right".
and what % of NRA members think that Obama will come after their guns.
Again, are you saying it's just the extremists? As usual, you ducked the question the first time. If so, cool, you're labeling a huge portion of your team.
Nice try on dodging your post that mocked the way blacks talk.
Whoosh, still, I was mocking wingnuts. No surprise it went and remains over your head.
Oh really please explain which wingnuts speak like this? We'll wait for further Twisting!
O'R it's your thread and you are of the legal persuasion. So what's the answer or is there one?
Wow, his opinion has been clear from the start. If you haven't figured it out, there is likely nothing that he can post that will help you.
Reality wrote:No Vred, you are dumb about "our team". Since when does the NRA speak for all the right and what % of NRA members think that Obama will come after their guns.
The NRA states outright that Obama is "coming for our guns."
A simple, entirely neutral Google search on [NRA Obama] shows the sheer level of dishonest wingnuttery they're trying to whip up.
But take the NRA out of the picture. Do a Google search on [Obama guns -NRA], which will exclude pages with any mention of the NRA. The wingnuttery continues.
Opinon doesn't provide a way for Obama to come get the guns now does it. If opinion ruled, you would be Queen because you have an opinion about everything. You didn't win the Super Poster nod from a box of Cracker Jacks.
Mocking wing nutters eh. Try that lingo the next time you are in mixed black and white company and then try to explain your way out of it.
Evidently O'R deosn't have the answer.
BTW, I've noticed you are exercising your self proclaimed title of lefty spokes person by answering for the left. You and Baby Doc.
Reality wrote:No Vred, you are dumb about "our team". Since when does the NRA speak for all the right and what % of NRA members think that Obama will come after their guns.
The NRA states outright that Obama is "coming for our guns."
A simple, entirely neutral Google search on [NRA Obama] shows the sheer level of dishonest wingnuttery they're trying to whip up.
But take the NRA out of the picture. Do a Google search on [Obama guns -NRA], which will exclude pages with any mention of the NRA. The wingnuttery continues.
You had an excellent scenario, Rstrong, except you may have forgotten Heller, that pretty much does away with your argument that "militia" regulated or otherwise, carries much weight. Two Supreme Court decisions to strengthen, not weaken, Second Amendment rights don't bode well for any help in creative interpretation.
Having said that, however, your theory is the best I've heard so far.
Reality wrote:
O'R it's your thread and you are of the legal persuasion. So what's the answer or is there one?
My position, and not one taken without quite a bit of research, is that there is no viable way for "Obama" to take away our guns. I think I started by saying that, but what-everr. My "challenge" is for anyone who wants to play to come up with a realistic and viable way in which it could be done. So far, not only in this forum, no one has been able to do so. Most theories make a huge - huge - jump into imagination and they don't hold up under even cursory challenge. So my question is real - if all these people are going to run around screaming "Obama's gonna take our guns" then somebody ought to have a workable plan.
1. to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2. to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.
3. to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit...
As always, Colonel Taylor and "Reality" flub a definition. Please keep posting about this, you two are a scream!
If this hole gets any bigger vred you may never get out. So why did you mock the righies with a black dialect/slang? You're doing so well digging this here hole I can't wait to here this twist!
Colonel Taylor wrote: So why did you mock the righies with a black dialect/slang? You're doing so well digging this here hole I can't wait to here this twist!
Ummm, maybe because it was righties that kept playing over and over and overrrr the vid of the woman talking about what Obama was going to give her. Maybe because every vid played by the right to show an "Obama voter" with a stupid idea has someone speaking like that. You DO remember those vids, don't you?
Reality wrote:
O'R it's your thread and you are of the legal persuasion. So what's the answer or is there one?
My position, and not one taken without quite a bit of research, is that there is no viable way for "Obama" to take away our guns. I think I started by saying that, but what-everr. My "challenge" is for anyone who wants to play to come up with a realistic and viable way in which it could be done. So far, not only in this forum, no one has been able to do so. Most theories make a huge - huge - jump into imagination and they don't hold up under even cursory challenge. So my question is real - if all these people are going to run around screaming "Obama's gonna take our guns" then somebody ought to have a workable plan.
I'm not saying that this is rational or possible, but some think that the UN Gun Ban Treaty could evolve into infringement of gun ownership in the US, by a broad interpretation of international gun trafficking.
Wneglia wrote:
I'm not saying that this is rational or possible, but some think that the UN Gun Ban Treaty could evolve into infringement of gun ownership in the US, by a broad interpretation of international gun trafficking.
Some do, but there is substantial evidence that that could not occur. If you're really interested, I can post links, but it's pretty easy to find. Even snopes, et. al. has analysis of it.
Colonel Taylor wrote: So why did you mock the righies with a black dialect/slang? You're doing so well digging this here hole I can't wait to here this twist!
Ummm, maybe because it was righties that kept playing over and over and overrrr the vid of the woman talking about what Obama was going to give her. Maybe because every vid played by the right to show an "Obama voter" with a stupid idea has someone speaking like that. You DO remember those vids, don't you?
So nice for another lib to come to vred's rescue as she digs deeper and deeper. That was a black women speaking like she normally does and wasn't changed or edited. Her life her choice to act and talk that way.
Vred specifically said she was mocking righties, why did she use that particular dialect or slang? She has dodged the question and continues too, she no doubt has a problem with black folk and throws it out there regularly.
I'll tell you the same reason she uses pimps and whores when she see blacks, of all the folks I have ever come across you libs seem to like being racist then turning it around. She made the racist slang not us, also who was talking about the Obama women anyway? More Twist and diversion as usual by a lib.
Colonel Taylor wrote:
So nice for another lib to come to vred's rescue as she digs deeper and deeper. ..:
Start your own thread to beat on Vrede for whatever.
You like guns, don't you? Let's talk about guns and whether the government can take them away on this thread, OK?
O Really wrote:You had an excellent scenario, Rstrong, except you may have forgotten Heller, that pretty much does away with your argument that "militia" regulated or otherwise, carries much weight.
Actually I was specifically referring to Heller:
rstrong wrote:The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
[...] If they can't limit gun ownership to a "well regulated militia", then they can impose their own definition of "proper discipline and training."
The rest of my point was that such a reinterpretation is minor compared to the constitutional reinterpretations of the last administration, with one of the big ones upheld by this one.
Colonel Taylor wrote:
So nice for another lib to come to vred's rescue as she digs deeper and deeper. ..:
Start your own thread to beat on Vrede for whatever.
You like guns, don't you? Let's talk about guns and whether the government can take them away on this thread, OK?
Yup vred makes a racist comment and oreally gets a thorn in his crow. It's so easy to figure out who the racist are! Sort of like y'all should make a new thread about misspelled words ha.
Are you calling much of the gun owning right extremist?...
