On one hand, you have video that's been shared and promulgated showing Michelle with a bulge that looks like a swinging dick.
But then, also apply some counter-thinking. Have you seen that video in its original format, on TV? Or is it a promulgated video, being shared around as 'evidence' or 'proof'? As a video being shared around on social media, unless you can track down its original source etc, you HAVE to acknowledged that it could be a manipulated video. It might not be, but also it might be.
That's called reasonable doubt.
Also, if Obama is a transvestite (if she/he still has a dick, she/he is not transexual, is she/he?), then why, as one of the most focused on, public figures in the world ('wife' of the president of the USA), would she/he take any sort of risks that would make the dick obvious? A broken strap, perhaps? But it seems bloody careless if not ridiculous to me. If they are trying to hide the fact, which ostensibly seems the case, then why these obvious instances?
For me, the real point here is NOT actually whether Obama is a biological male or a biological female. Far and away what is more important, to me, anyway, is HOW I deal with the information, aka the data and 'evidence' - circumstantial and direct - that comes across my desk, as it were.
In cases like Michelle Obama, I simply keep my skepticism high, particularly so when so many people seem so happy to engage with belief as if it is fact.
Time will tell. In the meantime, HOW I process information, that's about 1000 times more important me than M. Obama's genital situation.
Man-ipulated videos? Like on Ellen's show?
OK, let's apply some critical thinking.
On one hand, you have video that's been shared and promulgated showing Michelle with a bulge that looks like a swinging dick.
But then, also apply some counter-thinking. Have you seen that video in its original format, on TV? Or is it a promulgated video, being shared around as 'evidence' or 'proof'? As a video being shared around on social media, unless you can track down its original source etc, you HAVE to acknowledged that it could be a manipulated video. It might not be, but also it might be.
That's called reasonable doubt.
Also, if Obama is a transvestite (if she/he still has a dick, she/he is not transexual, is she/he?), then why, as one of the most focused on, public figures in the world ('wife' of the president of the USA), would she/he take any sort of risks that would make the dick obvious? A broken strap, perhaps? But it seems bloody careless if not ridiculous to me. If they are trying to hide the fact, which ostensibly seems the case, then why these obvious instances?
For me, the real point here is NOT actually whether Obama is a biological male or a biological female. Far and away what is more important, to me, anyway, is HOW I deal with the information, aka the data and 'evidence' - circumstantial and direct - that comes across my desk, as it were.
In cases like Michelle Obama, I simply keep my skepticism high, particularly so when so many people seem so happy to engage with belief as if it is fact.
Time will tell. In the meantime, HOW I process information, that's about 1000 times more important me than M. Obama's genital situation.