Intimidating Eyeballs

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Flanders, Oct 24, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,577
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    I did not watch the debate; so highlighting Hussein’s physical antics comes as a pleasant surprise:

    Eyeballing someone to death is a street punk’s favorite trick. Intimidating eyeballs are usually accompanied by tight jaws.
    [​IMG]

    The motive behind eyeball intimidation is found in the general belief that a liar cannot look anyone in the eye. In fact, I never met a liar who did not look me in the eye. The trick for liars is to lie while looking you in the eye. It’s actually a moral thing. The stare alone implies superior morality. The stare is supposed to convey inferiority to the person being scorched by the starer.

    To be fair there is a possibility Hussein sees himself as Foghorn Leghorn “Look me in the eye, boy, I say look me in the eye when I’m talking to you.”

    In any event, it comes as no surprise that Hussein had to fall back on his gutter training since he cannot tell the truth about anything. Here again, I want to be fair. Maybe he learned eyeball intimidation at Harvard.

    Happily, Romney did not fall for it:


    President slammed for vicious 'Obamastare'
    'The media can't sell the Obama they saw last night'
    Published: 9 hours ago
    by JOE KOVACS

    President slammed for vicious ‘Obamastare’

    Finally, I always related eyeball intimidation to politically correct speech. One is punished for incorrect speech, while eyeball intimidation is not only acceptable it transforms the intimidator into a paragon of virtue. One question: Is it okay for white Americans to use eyeball intimidation on black Americans?
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2012
  2. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,669
    Thanks Received:
    6,459
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,468
    One question? And that is it, huh?

    Idiot.
     
  3. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,577
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    To blastoff: The topic is obviously too complex for a dumbbell to come with up more than a “Huh.” I suspect that is the same response you utter in amazement every time you finish counting your toes.
     
  4. AquaAthena
    Offline

    AquaAthena INTJ/ INFJ

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Messages:
    15,453
    Thanks Received:
    11,061
    Trophy Points:
    2,265
    Location:
    ♥ TEXAS ♥ in Spirit
    Ratings:
    +12,342
    It was a threatening stare for the duration of the debate. Couldn't you just see the primal intimidation behind it? However, "All's fair in love and war?"

    Another reason for it could be the bad press he received during the first debate for looking downward most of the time, as if imply, "not listening...don't want or need to be here."

    [​IMG]
     
  5. LoneLaugher
    Offline

    LoneLaugher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    45,669
    Thanks Received:
    6,459
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Inside Mac's Head
    Ratings:
    +18,468
    Very weak. My condolences.
     
  6. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,577
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    Even the accomplished liar could not make his intimidating eyeballs look the father of Tyrone Woods in the eye:

    As to Hillary Clinton:

    Tyrone Woods' Father Speaks out about His Son
    October 24, 2012 10:45 PM EDT
    by Renee Nal

    Tyrone Woods' Father Speaks out about His Son | Gather

    Here’s the avenue of inquiry the MSM should be following: No decision is ever made without first considering the effect it will have on the United Nations. The question is: How much consideration did the Administration give to the United Nations if any? Before dismissing my take watch this video:

    Admittedly, Senator Sessions was talking about a full scale war; however, based on Panetta’s own words it is fair to say that neither he nor anyone else high up in the chain of command would move to save our people under attack without first getting the UN’s permission.
     
  7. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,577
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,587
    What a load of crap:


    Panetta admits it was a terrorist attack then explains why he did NOT send military help as soon as the attack began. Perhaps Panetta and Dempsey thought the attack was a trap planned by General Rommel who had heavy armor in reserve:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nXsg_5RxdeQ]Erwin Rommel and his Afrika Korps - YouTube[/ame]​

    One thing is abundantly clear from Panetta’s comments. Neither he nor anyone in the Administration believed the military could win the fight; so they went for the political victory at the United Nations. If he says the military could have won easily the question becomes “Then why the hell didn’t you send in the marines?”

    I do not care what justification the Administration offers. Nobody can convince me that so-called International law was not the deciding factor for holding the military in check while Americans were being killed on TV.

    Parenthetically, in 1993 the United Nations had its filthy hands all over the decisions in Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down).
     

Share This Page