The Obama Personality cult

WumBuster

Posted this thread already in AH but was shot down by a lot of people who only want to adhere to the sheep mentality/Obama cult and only hear what they want to hear. Im not really into conspiracy theories generally and i dont consider this a conspiracy theory as such only an analysis on the motivations and rise to power of the leader of the free world. I dont think its anything hugely unusual much different from the 'heroes' we lauded in our own country at the time and who are now public hate figures. >

Found this interesting article that examines the theory that Obama is basically a chronic narcissist, like a cult leader, who has come from nowhere and fooled everyone by creating this messianic like persona around him. I do agree with lots of it. When i first saw this guy i was like wtf, he's too smooth, too good to be true, people screaming, and crying deliriously at his speeches etc hasnt been seen in the western world since probably Hitler.

Whats odd is that there are so many question marks about his background, his place of birth etc. The fact that his own brother is living in a shack in a third world country on one dollar a day shows that Obama only cares about those who contribute to his ego, like any such narcissist. The fact that there was a less than 50/50 chance that osama Bin laden was in the house when they shot him, didnt deter him risking Soldier's lives as he saw the potential headlines and personal credit coming his way, like a narcissist would have done.The list goes on. read the article if your interested, that shows Obama to be a conman really. http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html

BTW I dont find his wife a particularly nice person. She seems to be constantly trying to hog his limelight and even reprimands him in public which makes you wonder who is really wearing the trousers. there is something Bonny and Clyde about the whole thing, Ive included a second article about a book that was written about how Michelle Obama is acting inside the white house. Causing rows, being demanding with staff and getting them fired, spending extravagance on clothes etc and fighting with her husband. Also the racially aggravating statements that she makes I feel is inappropriate. She and her husband are supposed to be representing all the people of America. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...k-reveals.html

WumBuster

anniemcl wrote: »

Okay.........The Royal Family in England Salute your stupid ass.

Have a nice day.

Okay, I dont know what you mean by that exactly... only that you dont agree with me hence the name calling. Anyhoo we're finished, next.

francois

faithfreedom.org have their own anti muslim agenda , another website of far-right nutjobs that can't deal with a black man being in the whitehouse...Yawn

DB21

WumBuster wrote: »

Posted this thread already in AH but was shot down by a lot of people who only want to adhere to the sheep mentality/Obama cult and only hear what they want to hear.

No, it was shot down cause it was absolute rubbish.

Torakx

Good post.
Its pretty obvious to anyone with some common sense that this guy was modeled to be a god to these fanatics.

There are alot of pictures of him behind a sun for example.And symbolism is not what people think imo.

Il try find a speech where he uses NLP to whip the crowd into a frenzy.Its rather obvious to anyone who has read a few books or looked into NLP(neuro linguistic programming).
I want it to be taught in secondary schools to protect people from politicians.
They are the future voters and they need to be protected i really believe.
That is also i think why alot of symbolism is used by pop stars, because their target audience are also future voters.

well i couldnt find his speech where he says " and you will see a light shining down....."
I remember watching that speech and being shocked at how easy he got away with this obvious NLP ploy.
You create a peak in rapport and in the targets emotions, then fire your nlp anchors.
The shining light part of his speech is not really an anchor per say, it is more of an association method,probably targeted at christians.

An anchor would be planting a word/s or gesture at a crescendo or peak(emotional states apply) of a speech/interaction and then using said anchor later to create and reinforce that same apparratus.

I only watch his speeches to see his nlp techniques lol
Couldnt be arsed about his policies, we should all know by now its a pack a lies dressed up in a pretty package.

Francois, he may be a target by such groups, however that is does not make them wrong in some respects.
Of course there will be racists who will hate on a black president.
However i do think these same groups are being used to destroy any good criticism of the man.
If you can filter out the propoganda and childish bias that is there in his critics worldwide, you might find yourself agreeing with more than you previously thought.

Db21, your avatar is suitable considering the content of my post.Please do some research and try not to be swung by extremists like racist groups etc.

Jonny7

Half-decent guy becomes president - cannot be possible therefore he is a) the antichrist b) not born in the US c) a cult leader using NLP programming and symbolism d) all of the above

Torakx

Im genuinely suprised at that comment Johnny.
Do you really believe he does not use nlp techniques for a start?
They are public speakers and representatives of government.
Public speaking is what i studied in my spare time growing up.
I guess that might be more obvious to me because of that,but its only dawned on me now.
I honestly thought it was apparrent to anyone who just watched him with that idea in mind.

It is not against any law afaik to use NLP in speeches.Its a good tactic.
Im just highlighting its use and showing how people are manipulated.

shedweller

It's just another example of brainwashing on tv. Or anywhere for that matter.

Jonny7

shedweller wrote: »

It's just another example of brainwashing on tv. Or anywhere for that matter.

Well thank god we have highly intelligent conspiracy theorists who can see through it all and inform us what is really happening, for a moment there I thought he was just a pretty good orator.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well thank god we have highly intelligent conspiracy theorists who can see through it all and inform us what is really happening, for a moment there I thought he was just a pretty good orator.

Have you stopped to consider that you could be one of the groupies in the cult?

How can anyone describe a President who has given himself,-- and used -- the power to kill US citizens without any kind of trial as "just a pretty good orator" is crazy.

WumBuster

francois wrote: »

faithfreedom.org have their own anti muslim agenda , another website of far-right nutjobs that can't deal with a black man being in the whitehouse...Yawn

What has his race got to do with it? Nothing and everything. I think it was a clever ploy by the democrats to plant this guy(who was previously unknown and way off the radar) as the fact of his race would make it very difficult for people to criticize him without fear of being labelled racist.
C'mon you dont think it's all a set up? USA is a notoriously racist country, the fact that a black man is president dosent make you wonder a little bit how this all came to pass?

gibraltar

WumBuster wrote: »

I think it was a clever ploy by the democrats to plant this guy(who was previously unknown and way off the radar) as the fact of his race would make it very difficult for people to criticize him without fear of being labelled racist.

Well that worked out great for the democrats, nobody in america is criticizing Obama... oh wait, there are entire networks almost devoted to criticizing him and his race is a major component of that criticism.

WumBuster wrote: »

C'mon you dont think it's all a set up? USA is a notoriously racist country, the fact that a black man is president dosent make you wonder a little bit how this all came to pass?

Notoriously racist... like when the bush team disallowed huge amounts of black people from voting? makes you wonder if those people were a bit more eager to cote next time,

But thats my opinion, please explain further how you feel, how did it all come to pass?

Jonny7

WumBuster wrote: »

What has his race got to do with it? Nothing and everything. I think it was a clever ploy by the democrats to plant this guy(who was previously unknown and way off the radar) as the fact of his race would make it very difficult for people to criticize him without fear of being labelled racist.
C'mon you dont think it's all a set up? USA is a notoriously racist country, the fact that a black man is president dosent make you wonder a little bit how this all came to pass?

A set up by who? the Democrats rigged themselves against themselves? (vs Hillary) and then rigged the Presidency under the noses of the GOP?

francois

WumBuster wrote: »

C'mon you dont think it's all a set up? USA is a notoriously racist country, the fact that a black man is president dosent make you wonder a little bit how this all came to pass?

It is called democracy. Not all americans are racist. Odd how it seems that the troofer/Obama is a muslim/hitler/insert racist epithet of choice/ blogs tend to be run by hard right white christian fundies who cannot accept a black man in the whitehouse

Run_to_da_hills

francois wrote: »

It is called democracy. Not all americans are racist. Odd how it seems that the troofer/Obama is a muslim/hitler/insert racist epithet of choice/ blogs tend to be run by hard right white christian fundies who cannot accept a black man in the whitehouse

And blacks also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TEbIPOHNBQ

endacl

Now where would rational debate be without YouTube...?

Sincerely looking forward to the 'NWO instigated by finger-biter named Charlie' CT thread...

francois

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

And blacks also.

There will always be one useful idiot

Run_to_da_hills

francois wrote: »

There will always be one useful idiot

A black man that exposes Obama for what he is is an idiot.

endacl

No. An idiot went on a rant. Rant was filmed, posted to YouTube, and by the transformative power of CT delusion, became 'evidence'. Evidence of what exactly remains unclear, but it does keep the comedy coming on these threads. Rock on.

Torakx

Thats cute, you folks still think theres two sides in american politics

Yes the black card was played as an aside to their other strategies.

Tell me this though.
What did you think of the Obama promotional video i posted on page 1?
Anything weird about it?

Run_to_da_hills

endacl wrote: »

No. An idiot went on a rant. Rant was filmed, posted to YouTube, and by the transformative power of CT delusion, became 'evidence'. Evidence of what exactly remains unclear, but it does keep the comedy coming on these threads. Rock on.

That video was uploaded four years ago.

A lot of water has gone beneath the bridge.

The evidence is becoming quite clear now.

Obama is a true adversary of the Devil, a compulsive liar and an articulate mater of deception.

endacl

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

No. An idiot went on a rant. Rant was filmed, posted to YouTube, and by the transformative power of CT delusion, became 'evidence'. Evidence of what exactly remains unclear, but it does keep the comedy coming on these threads. Rock on.

That video was uploaded four years ago.

A lot of water has gone beneath the bridge.

The evidence is becoming quite clear now.

Obama is a true adversary of the Devil, a compulsive liar and an articulate mater of deception.

He can't be a true adversary of the devil. There is no devil.

I won't bother with your YouTube links if its all the same. They get a bit silly.

Question.... If I made a short video entitled 'RTDH - makes no sense' and uploaded it to a YouTube channel called 'really secret stuff they don't want you to know', would you take that as evidence that you make no sense? I could link it to some David icke lizard stuff if that'd help?

Run_to_da_hills

endacl wrote: »

He can't be a true adversary of the devil. There is no devil.

Obama would like you to believe that too.

Torakx

I think by arguing for or against the devil side of that topic, you miss purposefully or accidently some major points.

If that suits you guys fair enough, dont blame me in 2 months when i say something and then i get a reply..what are you talking about? lol

Do some real research on the mechanics in play and leave the metaphysics for a while until the certainties are aknowledge..in my opinnion anyway.
I think i have a very valid point to make regarding the video i posted and my question on this page.
It would serve "skeptics" well to argue about a metaphysical being, than possibly be shown as mislead in themselves.

All this shows to me is that people here are willng to take an easy arguement for the sake of feeling superior than actually think about twhat we are discussing in all seriousness ^^

Its very neurotic if that is the case.Please show me as a fool for such a comment and actually think about this in all seriousnes(despite any metaphyscal arguements that CANNOT be proven definitely at this time).
i dont subscribe to or deny any metaphysical theory to be straight.I juast know its a pontless discussion when applying it to mechanics in politics and social coercion

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

No. An idiot went on a rant. Rant was filmed, posted to YouTube, and by the transformative power of CT delusion, became 'evidence'. Evidence of what exactly remains unclear.

... to you maybe. Obviously it is evidence that criticism of Obama isn't neccessarily based on anti-black racism.

I am sure there are many black Libyans who despise Obama because they have had loved ones lynched and hung KKK style by his "rebels" (Sunni terrorists) of choice.

endacl wrote: »

Obama but it does keep the comedy coming on these threads. Rock on.

You know what's funny?
The hypocrisy of neo-liberal Obama lovers who would have been hopping up and down over Bush but then turn a blind eye to Obama's wars, secret torture prisons in Somalia, killing children etc. Rock on.

Jonny7

Torakx wrote: »

Thats cute, you folks still think theres two sides in american politics

You think that's air you're breathing? you think that's the moon up there?

Do I now qualify as a non-sheeple thinking outside the box?

francois

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Obama would like you to believe that too.

Oh well if it is on another fringe anti-semitic blog it must be true

endacl

Jonny7 wrote: »

You think that's air you're breathing? you think that's the moon up there?

Do I now qualify as a non-sheeple thinking outside the box?

'fraid not. We're sheeple once we don't toe the other line... :rolleyes:

endacl

Torakx wrote: »

Thats cute, you folks still think theres two sides in american politics

Bit of an assumptive leap? Did you have your tinfoil hat upgraded to let you read minds?

Oh, and that would be 'there are', not 'theres I]sic.[/I'...

:cool:

gibraltar

Torakx wrote: »

I think by arguing for or against the devil side of that topic, you miss purposefully or accidently some major points.

If that suits you guys fair enough, dont blame me in 2 months when i say something and then i get a reply..what are you talking about? lol

Do some real research on the mechanics in play and leave the metaphysics for a while until the certainties are aknowledge..in my opinnion anyway.
I think i have a very valid point to make regarding the video i posted and my question on this page.
It would serve "skeptics" well to argue about a metaphysical being, than possibly be shown as mislead in themselves.

All this shows to me is that people here are willng to take an easy arguement for the sake of feeling superior than actually think about twhat we are discussing in all seriousness ^^

Its very neurotic if that is the case.Please show me as a fool for such a comment and actually think about this in all seriousnes(despite any metaphyscal arguements that CANNOT be proven definitely at this time).
i dont subscribe to or deny any metaphysical theory to be straight.I juast know its a pontless discussion when applying it to mechanics in politics and social coercion

First a question, do you think that the devil is real and if so is he/she/it a major part of US politics?

endacl

gibraltar wrote: »

First a question, do you think that the devil is real and if so is he/she/it a major part of US politics?

Ridiculous notion. How is he supposed to keep an eye on politics when he spends all his time down in the Delta making bluesmen great?

gibraltar

endacl wrote: »

Ridiculous notion. How is he supposed to keep an eye on politics when he spends all his time down in the Delta making bluesmen great?

Bravo Sir... Bravo!

Torakx

LOL hows de wether up their on ur hi horse

If you can understand the hidden meaning behind those mispelled words, then you have no need to correct my grammar, i already know how to use english correctly, i am just too busy to take my time to type posts in a way that pleases your obsessive compulsive behaviour.

No i dont believe in the devil.
That does not mean others in politics dont.
However i do not believe the devil is a major motivating factor in mainstream american politics.

If you needed to pin a label on me, you could try agnostic, but that would be tenuous at best lol

My point is its looking more and more like some people are arguing against the devil being involved with politics, because they dont wish to acknowledge whats under their noses.
Its like people are trying to argue for the sake of it.

If you really, really,dont believe the devil is actually in existance and someone who does is talking about Obama being in cahoots with the Devil(which again did not come up as a main topic here), you are obviously here to argue and not contribute in a positive way.

Instead of acknowledging what you truly believe as insane, why not discuss the mechanics that are in play that you can acknowledge.

Im willing to meet you on that level, when you are finished talking metaphysics.

I can only surmise its because it would be a bad thing to be wrong and so, taking the easy route is more preferable than acknowledging some truths.

I may even be wrong! So why not just take a look.
I posted a video promoting Obama and got no response.
Same when i asked about the video.
Maybe its nothing big at all, but the way the focus keeps shifting to the devil, i could swear you guys were hardcore athiests on a vendetta.

gibraltar

Torakx wrote: »

LOL hows de wether up their on ur hi horse

If you can understand the hidden meaning behind those mispelled words, then you have no need to correct my grammar, i already know how to use english correctly, i am just too busy to take my time to type posts in a way that pleases your obsessive compulsive behaviour.

? High horse? because I dont believe in satan?... the same as you? very strange answer.

Torakx wrote: »

No i dont believe in the devil.
That does not mean others in politics dont.
However i do not believe the devil is a major motivating factor in mainstream american politics.

ok so can you understand why someone mentioning the devil and factual politics side by side might weaken any argument they make?

Torakx wrote: »

My point is its looking more and more like some people are arguing against the devil being involved with politics, because they dont wish to acknowledge whats under their noses.
Its like people are trying to argue for the sake of it.

I would say that arguing that the devil is an important factor in politics is a clear case of someone not wanting to acknowledge what under their noes, do you agree that saying the devil is a major player in US politics would distract from a true understanding of the american political system?

Torakx wrote: »

My point is its looking more and more like some people are arguing against the devil being involved with politics, because they dont wish to acknowledge whats under their noses.
Its like people are trying to argue for the sake of it.

No your 100% wrong, check the thread again, trying to get the thread back on track, trying to move away from nonsense posts preaching about the devil. Please recheck the thread to confirm this.

Torakx wrote: »

If you really, really,dont believe the devil is actually in existance and someone who does is talking about Obama being in cahoots with the Devil(which again did not come up as a main topic here), you are obviously here to argue and not contribute in a positive way.

We both agree the devil is fiction, so I dont understand why you would defend someone bringing the devil into this debate instead of focusing on real issues?

Lets deal with the main topic and leave talk of the devil out - why do you not agree with this?

Torakx wrote: »

Instead of acknowledging what you truly believe as insane, why not discuss the mechanics that are in play that you can acknowledge.

A good idea, lets ask everyone to leave insane beliefs out of this thread and deal with real world issues.

endacl

gibraltar wrote: »

A good idea, lets ask everyone to leave insane beliefs out of this thread and deal with real world issues.

Thread would evaporate. There would be nothing to respond to...

Run_to_da_hills

francois wrote: »

Oh well if it is on another fringe anti-semitic blog it must be true

There is a huge difference between anti Semitic and exposing Zionist corruption.

I would go definitely by the latter.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/08/23/911-and-zion-what-was-israels-role/

endacl

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is a huge difference between anti Semitic and exposing Zionist corruption.

I would go definitely by the latter.

It could be argued that proposing the latter reveals the former.

francois

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is a huge difference between anti Semitic and exposing Zionist corruption.

I would go definitely by the latter.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/08/23/911-and-zion-what-was-israels-role/

I'd still like to know the reason why so may CT'ers are anti-semitic, as their blogs prove. for exapmple the widespread belief in the discredited Protocols of the elders of zion, or some of the troofers claims about there being no jews in the wtc on 11/9

Run_to_da_hills

francois wrote: »

I'd still like to know the reason why so may CT'ers are anti-semitic, as their blogs prove. for exapmple the widespread belief in the discredited Protocols of the elders of zion, or some of the troofers claims about there being no jews in the wtc on 11/9

A person can be anti-Zionist without being an anti Semite.

Zionism is a a political creed and must be treated like any other.

A person could be anti-Communist without being anti-Chinese.

Torakx

I dont have time for multi qouting and i dont really know how.So il use bold print.

gibraltar wrote: »

? High horse? because I dont believe in satan?... the same as you? very strange answer.

That was in response to someone attempting to teach me grammar.A useless condecending way of putting me down when they dont agree with the actual content of my posts.


ok so can you understand why someone mentioning the devil and factual politics side by side might weaken any argument they make?

Yes i certainly do, and i resent people taking the easy bait when there are better things to discuss.
However im also open to theoritical chat about metaphysics when there is no other points to make.This is not the case in this thread.

I would say that arguing that the devil is an important factor in politics is a clear case of someone not wanting to acknowledge what under their noes, do you agree that saying the devil is a major player in US politics would distract from a true understanding of the american political system?
Yes agreed.Why stoop to that level in repsonse?



No your 100% wrong, check the thread again, trying to get the thread back on track, trying to move away from nonsense posts preaching about the devil. Please recheck the thread to confirm this.

Engaging is not helping the situation.Unless someone can tell me exactly how they are going to convert the religious minded.

We both agree the devil is fiction, so I dont understand why you would defend someone bringing the devil into this debate instead of focusing on real issues?
Because the person everyone is ganging up on regarding their own beliefs actually makes other very good points.
And also contributes alot to this forum.
Creating scare threads ..yes sometimes it can be a bit sensational to grab your attention.
But also informing me and others about what is going on in the world and especially the west.
I appreciate the info i do take seriously and Im sensible enough to disregard what I am more or less certain is not the case.

Lets deal with the main topic and leave talk of the devil out - why do you not agree with this?

I do agree, which is why i posted a video pertaining to politics and not religion and then asked a valid question which was ignored for talk of the devil ^^

A good idea, lets ask everyone to leave insane beliefs out of this thread and deal with real world issues.

Insanity is all about perspective.
Whats insane to you may be perfectly understandable to me.
But yes i would appreciate everyone saving metaphysics for after the mechanics of politics and social coercion etc etc is covered.
I do go easier on those propegating said issues on these forums, but that is mostly because i appreciate the other aspects of their posts and how they actually start threads here where people like you and me can post.

Without them you would have a mostly dead and /or blank forums.
for all the talk of denouncing someones beliefs on this forums, i am pretty sure it would be missed at the same time.
So please guys, get your kicks by all means, but dont use it as a means to avoid information and ideas and then come back in a few weeks or months acting all clueless and asking for links.
Its here now.Lets cover all the angles.

francois

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A person can be anti-Zionist without being an anti Semite.

Zionism is a a political creed and must be treated like any other.

A person could be anti-Communist without being anti-Chinese.

Of course, but you didn't answer the question

endacl

francois wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

A person can be anti-Zionist without being an anti Semite.

Zionism is a a political creed and must be treated like any other.

A person could be anti-Communist without being anti-Chinese.

Of course, but you didn't answer the question

Don't hold your breath. If a YouTube vid can't be found, it won't be answered.

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

It could be argued that proposing the latter reveals the former.

It could be "argued" that Christy Brown was better at football than Zidane - but one argument would be as idiotic as the other.

Brown Bomber

francois wrote: »

Of course, but you didn't answer the question

This:

I'd still like to know the reason why so may CT'ers are anti-semitic, as their blogs prove.

is a loaded question with a false premise. It doesn't deserve an answer.

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

It could be argued that proposing the latter reveals the former.

It could be "argued" that Christy Brown was better at football than Zidane - but one argument would be as idiotic as the other.

To a certain mindset, I suppose.... A reasonable person would disregard the false dichotomy though. Reason tends not to be welcomed on CT. Spoils the illusion.

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is a huge difference between anti Semitic and exposing Zionist corruption.

I would go definitely by the latter.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/08/23/911-and-zion-what-was-israels-role/

endacl wrote: »

It could be argued that proposing the latter reveals the former.

No, this is what I am on about.



l‘Waaaaaahhhh … I wanna bomb Iran but all I get is Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza and Syria … Waaaaaahhhh.’

l‘Waaaaaahhhh …Did America just say no l‘Waaaaaahhhh

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

francois wrote: »

Of course, but you didn't answer the question

This:

I'd still like to know the reason why so may CT'ers are anti-semitic, as their blogs prove.

is a loaded question with a false premise. It doesn't deserve an answer.

It's a straightforward question, grounded in empirical observation (I presume. It wasn't my question). Do you have an answer? 'Doesn't deserve' is a lazy cop-out.

francois

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This:


is a loaded question with a false premise. It doesn't deserve an answer.

Too difficult to answer?

endacl

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There is a huge difference between anti Semitic and exposing Zionist corruption.

I would go definitely by the latter.

http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/08/23/911-and-zion-what-was-israels-role/

endacl wrote: »

It could be argued that proposing the latter reveals the former.

No, this is what I am on about.



l‘Waaaaaahhhh … I wanna bomb Iran but all I get is Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Gaza and Syria … Waaaaaahhhh.’

l‘Waaaaaahhhh …Did America just say no l‘Waaaaaahhhh

I'm not bothering with any of your links. Just answer the points yourself. It's gets easier the more you do it.

Brown Bomber

endacl wrote: »

It's a straightforward question, grounded in empirical observation (I presume. It wasn't my question). Do you have an answer? 'Doesn't deserve' is a lazy cop-out.

I've just explained why it doesn't deserve an answer. Asking it again doesn't give it any extra credibility.

In case you don't know what a loaded question is:

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2]

endacl

Brown Bomber wrote: »

endacl wrote: »

It's a straightforward question, grounded in empirical observation (I presume. It wasn't my question). Do you have an answer? 'Doesn't deserve' is a lazy cop-out.

I've just explained why it doesn't deserve an answer. Asking it again doesn't give it any extra credibility.

In case you don't know what a loaded question is:

A loaded question is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being a logical fallacy, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2]

OK. We can agree what a loaded question is. Any chance you could answer the non-loaded, perfectly reasonable, question that was put? Avoid clumsy metaphor this time. We can agree also, I presume, that it could be argued that for example, a cabbage is a bigger guitar than a donkey. It could be argued, and could probably lead to an extensive an intellectually amusing thread. But it wouldn't answer the very simple question that was asked.

Try again. I'm sure you're well able for it...