Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama, like FDR and Lincoln, is one of the worst that we have ever seen.

I find the GOP's treatment of Lincoln a constant source of amusement.

"He was a Republican! Plus he was a traitor! Why won't black people vote for us? We're the Party of Lincoln! Good riddance to that [n-word] lover!"

You can practically smell the hair burning as they try to reconcile their inherent racism, reverence for the traitors that made up the Confederacy, and cheap exploitation of Lincoln's memory.

Anonymous wrote:Obama, like FDR and Lincoln, is one of the worst that we have ever seen.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:You are a liar. Here is what Obama actually said:

"I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we've gotten done in modern history"

He specifically limits his claims to legislative and foreign policy accomplishments. There is more to being "the best" or even "4th best" than those two areas. For instance, Obama's achievements in economic policy are not notable and in the area of civil liberties he has actually set us back.

If you want to argue that there are presidents beyond those mentioned by Obama who have had greater legislative or foreign policy accomplishments, make the argument. But, don't come in here telling outright lies.

Jeff, you are so so sensitive. If this blather of Obama was so on target, why did it get edited out of the broadcast?

If you would like to examine lies, you could start with "Bill Ayars is JUST A GUY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD." My understanding is that George was almost fired for asking that question; and as you know, it was never asked again. You love liars. Just admit it.

Anonymous wrote:Obama, like FDR and Lincoln, is one of the worst that we have ever seen.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, you dumb ass, his whole statment was there for you to read.

Do we need to begin defining what the definition of is is? Or Holder's latest takeoff on the same brand of crap.

Maybe you should delete subject from your format here since you are so sensitive to a subject line not stating the WHOLE topic.

He may be fourth best in his foursomes on the golf course. That's it, and he should be improving with all the practice he gets.

Anonymous wrote:Amazing, lots of smoke screen but still no explanation for 60 Minutes editing out Obama's delusions.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you silly goose of course you are commenting on the interview. It is the topic of this thread. The fact is that you are lost in attempting to defend Obama's laughable yet sad commentary and further lost trying to defend 60 Minutes editing to minimize the exhibition of Obama's delusional state of mind.

Fine, I condemn 60 Minutes for editing out that portion of the interview. This does nothing to change the fact that you lied about what Obama said. If you think Obama is delusional, please list presidents beyond those he mentioned who had greater legislative or foreign policy accomplishments. Prove that you can oppose Obama with more than lies.

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, I realize that you are grasping wildly when you assert that a lie has been told. FYI a headline is a headline. Headlines are followed by more information, details. For you to suggest that a lie has been told when the headline is followed by more detail and the idiots exact words just shows what an ass you can be.

Technically, your lie was contained in the "subject" of your post. The body contained nothing to elaborate on the subject. Your rationalization that a headline -- or a subject for that matter -- can be totally dishonest further demonstrates your lack of commitment to the truth. You told a lie. Simple as that.

OK, so why was it edited if it did not make Obama look like the arrogant delusional ass that he is?


The notion that 60 Minutes edited some portion of an interview with the President to satisfy any kind of agenda is ludicrous on its face.

Too bad the troll OP has no original ideas btw. I can almost anticipate what's going to be posted these days based on what's trumpeted on Drudge.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, you silly goose of course you are commenting on the interview. It is the topic of this thread. The fact is that you are lost in attempting to defend Obama's laughable yet sad commentary and further lost trying to defend 60 Minutes editing to minimize the exhibition of Obama's delusional state of mind.

Fine, I condemn 60 Minutes for editing out that portion of the interview. This does nothing to change the fact that you lied about what Obama said. If you think Obama is delusional, please list presidents beyond those he mentioned who had greater legislative or foreign policy accomplishments. Prove that you can oppose Obama with more than lies.

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, I realize that you are grasping wildly when you assert that a lie has been told. FYI a headline is a headline. Headlines are followed by more information, details. For you to suggest that a lie has been told when the headline is followed by more detail and the idiots exact words just shows what an ass you can be.

Technically, your lie was contained in the "subject" of your post. The body contained nothing to elaborate on the subject. Your rationalization that a headline -- or a subject for that matter -- can be totally dishonest further demonstrates your lack of commitment to the truth. You told a lie. Simple as that.