Obama's sex secrets laid bare: How he considered a gay fling, proposed twice to another Women

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Larry Sinclair. The conman who to date, has been unable to substantiate his wild claims.

Yes, there is a reason I brushed over Larry Sinclair. The guy and his claims are about as credible as "Jane Doe" and hers. Which is why they vanished into conspiracyland.

because in both cases, the claims were so wild, unsubstantiated, variable, and suspect that even the staunchest opponents of either Trump or Obama would touch them with a ten foot pole out of fear of looking like an ass.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Larry Sinclair. The conman who to date, has been unable to substantiate his wild claims.

Yes, there is a reason I brushed over Larry Sinclair. The guy and his claims are about as credible as "Jane Doe" and hers. Which is why they vanished into conspiracyland.

because in both cases, the claims were so wild, unsubstantiated, variable, and suspect that even the staunchest opponents of either Trump or Obama would touch them with a ten foot pole out of fear of looking like an ass.

Obama has never denied Larry Sinclair's claims, why should you?

If Obama had denied them (which he hasn't so I don't know why you find them dubious) then Larry could have filed a defamation suit and compelled a court to have the Sprint phone records proving his claims released.

But, in eight years, Obama never denied them and no reporter ever dared ask him about them.

ETA: There is only ONE UNDISPUTED SIDE TO LARRY'S STORY. One. So why invent a new side? If Obama thinks it's a lie, he had eight years to say so. Instead, Larry was made a political prisoner. That pretty much confirmed his story...circumstances would seem to indicate he was telling the truth.

ETA2: AND, at least in the case of 'Jane Doe,' Trump denied her claims. So 'Jane Doe's' story is far more dubious than Larry's.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Obama, as far as I can tell, pretty much ignored the guy, and barely gave him a passing mention. Not the same as "not disputing" the claims.

Most politicians, being subject to all sorts of accusations and rumors, are used to ignoring or waving off the most outlandish, stupid, claims. Why even give air to BS, even if to say it's BS? it's not even worth acknowledging. It's like the idiots who think all the world leaders are really baby eating reptiles. How many politicians go on record saying "No, of course I'm not a lizard!"? I don't remember any. Why? Because they have better things to do with their time and energy than respond to the crazies.

Sinclair hasn't provided anything substantial to back up his claims. And none of the most vicious anti-Obama GOPer gave this any attention, despite it would indeed further their agenda.

So why should I give credence to this story, or even care, when Obama's enemies certainly dont?

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: TruMcCarthy

Yeah, not much at all.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Obama, as far as I can tell, pretty much ignored the guy, and barely gave him a passing mention. Not the same as "not disputing" the claims.

Nope. That is the precise same thing as 'not disputing his claims.'

Larry provided hotel receipts, the limo driver's name, and details on Sprint phone records that would corroborate his story. Sprint would not release them without a court order and Larry couldn't get one without Obama's denial and an ensuing defamation claim. For me, it explains why Obama never denied any of it.

You need only look back at Bill Clinton if you want to see a president dispute wild claims about sexual harassment and rape. When a president hasn't disputed wild claims, like Larry's, in the past, generally most people understand that it means they cannot dispute them.

You invented a position that not even Obama has taken. That some MF blind devotion, right there. Wow.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

I want to say snarky things about tickle-play fighting, Obama's threatening fist, and auto-erotic asphyxia just because I think Obama is a major f*king jerk.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Nope. Not even close to not disputing. He ignored it, flat out.

Slick willy? All of his accusers actually had evidence, and their accusations were not only taken seriously by the Republicans, but the Republicans went after Clinton with it every turn. That there told me there was plenty to the accusations. And there was.

Fast forward, Larry Sinclair. republicans haven't touched him, nor spent any effort on him or his claims. In fact, no one, save the fringe, seems to care. He has limo receipts. So? I have a receipt from Taco bell two weeks ago. Prove I was there with Obama discussing gay world domination.

Company won't release the phone records without a court order? Wow. Companies following strict customer privacy policies, protecting customer information against unauthorized disclosure or release. Standard practice in the industry. Try getting my phone records without a warrant or a court order. Good luck.

I have a blind devotion to reality, this is true, and I do not apologize for it.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Nope. Not even close to not disputing. He ignored it, flat out.

*eyeroll*

Ok. Well, to most people, that qualifies SINGULARLY as 'not disputing.'

Did he dispute his allegations? Nope. Did he confirm them? Nope.

He did not dispute or confirm them.

Jesus. And, btw, I don't care about your partisan argument. I do believe that republicans ran interference for Obama. I am not a partisan and I am certain you will be dismayed by that.

Moving on from this inanity.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yeah. Republicans running interference for Obama. The same people who shut down government because their love for Obama. Yeah. That makes great sense.

Partisanship can be defined by personal attacks on things of zero consequence, like oh, this. This is actually a good example of far fringe partisan BS. A non-partisan argument against Obama would focus on his policies, deeds in office, and the like, because these things actually matter.

I'm sorry if it upsets you that the rest of the country could care less about whatever Obama may or may not have done on his own time in college. But we don't. We aren't in the dark ages anymore.

He didn't dispute, nor confirm them Sinclair's claims. He, repeat, IGNORED them. As in, they were so ridiculous that even giving a minute of breath to deny them is beneath anyone with a brain. Obama, and Obama's opponents, gave the accusations the due attention they were worth: zero.

I could care less about your own personal views, in regards to politics, that's hardly the issue at hand. I'm pointing out why Sinclair has about as much credibility as, say, Jane Doe.

Which is, Zero.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
He didn't dispute, nor confirm them Sinclair's claims.

Thank you for finally agreeing with what any sane person easily understands: Obama did not dispute Larry Sinclair's claims. Therefore, you have no reason to dispute them UNLESS you were spending the weekend with Obama the very same weekend that Larry claims he spent with Obama.

No reason to argue Larry's claims are untrue...other than some idiotic blind loyalty you might have.

Have a nice evening.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
He didn't dispute, nor confirm them Sinclair's claims.

Thank you for finally agreeing with what any sane person easily understands: Obama did not dispute Larry Sinclair's claims. Therefore, you have no reason to dispute them UNLESS you were spending the weekend with Obama the very same weekend that Larry claims he spent with Obama.

No reason to argue Larry's claims are untrue...other than some idiotic blind loyalty you might have.

Have a nice evening.

More like an "idiotic" devotion to fact. And public record. I know how confusing that must be fore you to grasp, but there it is.

a reply to: Spider879

why is there assumption that i care about the politics

i thought it was known voting is not real at the pre_javascript:icon('')sidenal level

a reply to: DocScurlock1774

How DARE you?!?!?!

Michael Obama was the most lovely and endearing first ladyboy we have ever had in the USA!

God I miss him!

Wait. I thought being gay wasn't a choice.

My god what an utterly pointless and ridiculous thread, even for the usual anti "HUSSEIN OBUMMER!!!11" crowd of children.

a reply to: fencesitter85

Yet you took time to post----

I wonder if any of this is connected back to Obama's childhood in Hawaii murdered pizza restaurateur, pot dealer, and 'Choom Gang' friend, 'Gay Ray' Boyer.

EXCLUSIVE: Obama's high school pot dealer who he thanked for the 'good times' was beaten to death with a hammer by his gay lover

www.dailymail.co.uk... lover-fights-flatulence-drugs.html

www.breitbart.com...

a reply to: IAMTAT

What the hell?

Obama is lucky he is a liberal Dem that still has the protection of TPTB. If this had been anybody with a (stupid) Repub next to their name it would be game over.

You should start a thread on those stories, I have yet to see any.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: IAMTAT

What the hell?

Obama is lucky he is a liberal Dem that still has the protection of TPTB. If this had been anybody with a (stupid) Repub next to their name it would be game over.

You should start a thread on those stories, I have yet to see any.

They've been around...Just completely ignored by the MSM.