Round 2 Obama the Liar

Obama ,the same old bullshit,hope and change,where failure is deemed a success....:9:
 
I thought they each had their points and felt it was as close to a draw as it could get.
I don't think that the debate changed anyone's vote, unlike the last debate between the two.

I think that it will actually show a bump for Obama in some key states. That said, it is still an election that can be lost by either candidate with just one foolish move or statement. At present, the President leads, but marginally.
 
Obama looked the fool he is,Romney wiped the floor with obama's lying ass as expected...:clap2::clap2:

haha, part of the time, he acted like a thug. As for lying, what we saw was his amplified version of Taqiyya and Kitman, but it didn't come off the way he planned, lol.

Lying (Taqiyya and Kitman)

TheReligionofPeace - Islam: Taqiyya and Lying


"Muslim scholars teach that Muslims should generally be truthful to each other, unless the purpose of lying is to "smooth over differences."

There are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman. These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam - in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them.


The Qur'an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.


Additional Notes:


Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them. The two forms are:



Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.



Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."



Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.



Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims."
 
He lied in the First debate too. Lies don't really bother some people around here.
 
I thought they each had their points and felt it was as close to a draw as it could get.
I don't think that the debate changed anyone's vote, unlike the last debate between the two.

I think Obama came out much stronger than last debate, and the is debate was much closer. Mitt Romney was never intimidated by this "new found braveness", so the one thing that stands clear:

The first debate said alot about how each of these candidates would react the first time to dealing with a hostile and commanding dictator. Obama still cowered away in the first meeting. What you saw from Romney in debate #1 is what you got in #2. Romney is mentally and physically tough, you can just tell by the way he carries himself. I do not think Romney will back down.


Now, former Howard Dean advisor, Joe Trippi said, he felt Obama came out much better, but it was not enough to sway the direction this election was going. Give Trippi credit for that honest answer!!!
 
I thought they each had their points and felt it was as close to a draw as it could get.
I don't think that the debate changed anyone's vote, unlike the last debate between the two.

I think Obama came out much stronger than last debate, and the is debate was much closer. Mitt Romney was never intimidated by this "new found braveness", so the one thing that stands clear:

The first debate said alot about how each of these candidates would react the first time to dealing with a hostile and commanding dictator. Obama still cowered away in the first meeting. What you saw from Romney in debate #1 is what you got in #2. Romney is mentally and physically tough, you can just tell by the way he carries himself. I do not think Romney will back down.


Now, former Howard Dean advisor, Joe Trippi said, he felt Obama came out much better, but it was not enough to sway the direction this election was going. Give Trippi credit for that honest answer!!!

Obama had 2 choices. To appear as the empty suit - or practice his Taqiyya and Kitman. There is no 3rd choice. :cool:
 

Forum List

Back
Top