The Daily Obamanation .... ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

[atomicdOGg34]

thank you. :clap:

as opposed to obamas ONE

which was just a remodel of something we already have

i notice how you ignored the last part

[atomicdOGg34]

hillary clinton has passed 2 things according to the same site

btw, passing 0 things is average according to the site

if your using this as a barometer for..... whatever your using it for

doesnt that mean hillary is twice as good as barack?

[Arben]

ok well heres the real question

why do you think he can do that? there has to be a reason for it
Like I said, the voters are proving that for you.

[atomicdOGg34]

Like I said, the voters are proving that for you.

wow thats a great reason

the voters also voted in george bush

[PetreTG]

obama honors them??? on one hand you want to attach obama with racist and on another you want to completely ignore ron pauls attachment to racist articles. if obama had a newsletter out with racist diatribes you'd bring it up left and right. bottom line petre...when it comes to politics you are about as brain dead as one of those zombies in 'night of the living dead'.
Nahhh your right.

I'm sure when Obama went to his Trinity United Church of the Holy Bullshit and the Reverend told the Congregation that they were bestowing there highest award on Farrakhan , that he turned his back on him while everyone was saying AMEN HALLELUJAH and left out of there never to return. :clap:

:rolleyes:

I have never ignored Ron Pauls attachment to the 30 year old racist article written by someone else. When that jack ass tried to smear him right before a caucus I POSTED his article in the Daily Paul.

Another balless and somewhat effeminate argument from Phonetap ... are you sure you're not an Obama Girl ... you sure are acting like one of them clueless ditzes.

[PetreTG]

Like I said, the voters are proving that for you.

We already know who's winning the popularity contest ... what does it really prove ?

People used to love Brittney Spears too . Look how wrong they were about her.

:kick:

[phonetap]

hillary clinton has passed 2 things according to the same site

btw, passing 0 things is average according to the site

if your using this as a barometer for..... whatever your using it for

doesnt that mean hillary is twice as good as barack?

:laughing: ...deductive reasoning isn't your strong suit isn't it. hillary clinton is supposed to have more legislation passed because she's been there longer than barack obama. ron paul should have 20 times as much as hillary but as you have kindly pointed out, ron paul has zero. nearly half-a-lifetime in public office and nothing tangible to show for it...

[PetreTG]

thank you. :clap:

I guess when I said NEVER pages ago .... that was too hard for you to understand.

ZERO you understand quite well though I see. I wonder why that is ? :cool:

[Arben]

wow thats a great reason

the voters also voted in george bush
Does everything go right over your head?

Obama, attracting republicans, independants, and Democrats of all corners, even in states that he's expected to lose, shows that he's able to unite.

[PetreTG]

Does everything go right over your head?

Obama, attracting republicans, independants, and Democrats of all corners, even in states that he's expected to lose, shows that he's able to unite.

On WHAT BASIS do you make the claim Obama is attracting Republicans ... That is ridiculous.

He's diametrically opposed to anything republicans want. :kick:

[Arben]

On WHAT BASIS do you make the claim Obama is attracting Republicans ... That is ridiculous.

He's diametrically opposed to anything republicans want. :kick:
Yet, as I type this, the news is talking about how he has attracted republican voters throughout the primaries.

[phonetap]

I guess when I said NEVER pages ago .... that was too hard for you to understand.

ZERO you understand quite well though I see. I wonder why that is ? :cool:

only in your underdeveloped brain did you answer the question...:laughing:

[phonetap]

On WHAT BASIS do you make the claim Obama is attracting Republicans ... That is ridiculous.

He's diametrically opposed to anything republicans want. :kick:

owning you is becoming far too easy...:laughing:

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+republicans

[TFK]

Like I said multiple times in this thread, he's the only one that's shown the capability to unite Americans. I feel we need that more than anything right now.


Ah, he can unite the Americans!

Into what? Voting for someone they don't know the 1st thing about except he's for 'change' and has 'charisma'?

Hitler did a pretty good job of uniting Germany, if I recall correctly.

TFK

[atomicdOGg34]

Ah, he can unite the Americans!

Into what? Voting for someone they don't know the 1st thing about except he's for 'change' and has 'charisma'?

Hitler did a pretty good job of uniting Germany, if I recall correctly.

TFK

he was a good speaker.

[phonetap]

Ah, he can unite the Americans!

Into what? Voting for someone they don't know the 1st thing about except he's for 'change' and has 'charisma'?

Hitler did a pretty good job of uniting Germany, if I recall correctly.

TFK

who are you supporting again?

[PetreTG]

owning you is becoming far too easy...:laughing:

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+republicans

http://www.demsforronpaul.org/

Fuck you really got me there!!!

:lol:

I don't have to own you , you own yourself. :lol:

[phonetap]

Fuck you really got me there!!!

:lol:



...:clap:

[TFK]

who are you supporting again?

I haven't decided yet.

I do know that I won't vote for Obama, Clinton or McCain. So, as I've said numerous times on this board, I will vote for the 3rd Party Candidate I think is most qualified.

TFK

[PetreTG]

Gimme about an hour and I'll have a site up called PhonetapfortheKKK.com ... :lol:

[atomicdOGg34]

:laughing: ...deductive reasoning isn't your strong suit isn't it. hillary clinton is supposed to have more legislation passed because she's been there longer than barack obama. ron paul should have 20 times as much as hillary but as you have kindly pointed out, ron paul has zero. nearly half-a-lifetime in public office and nothing tangible to show for it...

apparently you missed the entire part i said about the difference between just getting something passed (btw, the obama-lugar bill was just a remodel of a bill that HAD ALREADY BEEN PAST BEFORE, not shit that it got passed again) and getting actual meaningful legislation passed

like i said, its hard to pass a bill that takes power from the people who are voting for it

lets see: a bill thats just a remodel of something thats already been passed versus a bill that abolishes the federal reserve, gets US out of NATO, gets us out of the UN, restores power to the people by allowing them economic and social freedom, or any of the myriad of others hes proposed

i notice you dont want to take a look at their actual records, just the # passed :rolleyes:

getting shit passed doesnt suddenly not make it shit

[phonetap]

susan eisenhower, republican, granddaughter of former president dwight d eisenhower:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/01/AR2008020102621.html

Why I'm Backing Obama

By Susan Eisenhower
Saturday, February 2, 2008; Page A15

Forty-seven years ago, my grandfather Dwight D. Eisenhower (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dwight+D.+Eisenhower?tid=informline) bid farewell to a nation he had served for more than five decades. In his televised address, Ike famously coined the term "military-industrial complex," and he offered advice that is still relevant today. "As we peer into society's future," he said, we "must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."
Today we are engaged in a debate about these very issues. Deep in America's heart, I believe, is the nagging fear that our best years as a nation may be over. We are disliked overseas and feel insecure at home. We watch as our federal budget hemorrhages red ink and our civil liberties are eroded. Crises in energy, health care and education threaten our way of life and our ability to compete internationally. There are also the issues of a costly, unpopular war; a long-neglected infrastructure; and an aging and increasingly needy population.
I am not alone in worrying that my generation will fail to do what my grandfather's did so well: Leave America a better, stronger place than the one it found.
Given the magnitude of these issues and the cost of addressing them, our next president must be able to bring about a sense of national unity and change. As we no longer have the financial resources to address all these problems comprehensively and simultaneously, setting priorities will be essential. With hard work, much can be done.
The biggest barrier to rolling up our sleeves and preparing for a better future is our own apathy, fear or immobility. We have been living in a zero-sum political environment where all heads have been lowered to avert being lopped off by angry, noisy extremists. I am convinced that Barack Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Barack+Obama?tid=informline) is the one presidential candidate today who can encourage ordinary Americans to stand straight again; he is a man who can salve our national wounds and both inspire and pursue genuine bipartisan cooperation. Just as important, Obama can assure the world and Americans that this great nation's impulses are still free, open, fair and broad-minded.
No measures to avert the serious, looming consequences can be taken without this sense of renewal. Uncommon political courage will be required. Yet this courage can be summoned only if something profoundly different transpires. Putting America first -- ahead of our own selfish interests -- must be our national priority if we are to retain our capacity to lead.
The last time the United States had an open election was 1952. My grandfather was pursued by both political parties and eventually became the Republican nominee. Despite being a charismatic war hero, he did not have an easy ride to the nomination. He went on to win the presidency -- with the indispensable help of a "Democrats for Eisenhower" movement. These crossover voters were attracted by his pledge to bring change to Washington and by the prospect that he would unify the nation.
It is in this great tradition of crossover voters that I support Barack Obama's candidacy for president. If the Democratic Party (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Democratic+Party?tid=informline) chooses Obama as its candidate, this lifelong Republican will work to get him elected and encourage him to seek strategic solutions to meet America's greatest challenges. To be successful, our president will need bipartisan help.
Given Obama's support among young people, I believe that he will be most invested in defending the interests of these rising generations and, therefore, the long-term interests of this nation as a whole. Without his leadership, our children and grandchildren are at risk of growing older in a marginalized country that is left to its anger and divisions. Such an outcome would be an unacceptable legacy for any great nation.
Susan Eisenhower, a business consultant, is the author of four books, most recently "Partners in Space: US-Russian Cooperation After the Cold War."

---------------------------------------------------------
top this pastre...:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

[PetreTG]

Top what ? ... one article by a jaded old women , that probably wants some Obamalovin ?

:lol:

Holy fuck you're an idiot :laughing:

Here I'll top that .... http://fightbeat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22546

400+ posts by me on why Paul is worthy of our vote. :cool:

[phonetap]

Top what ? ... one article by a jaded old women , that probably wants some Obamalovin ?

:lol:

Holy fuck you're an idiot :laughing:

Here I'll top that .... http://fightbeat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22546

400+ posts by me on why Paul is worthy of our vote. :cool:

reading your psychobabble over the past days has caused phonetap to consider the possibilty of human devolution.

[PetreTG]

reading your psychobabble over the past days has caused phonetap to consider the possibilty of human devolution.

I see I once again have to revert to the Phonetapout angle of attack ....

I'm Rubber you're glue whatever you say bounces off me and .... ahhh never mind. Go play with you're Obama Doll.

[Arben]

http://www.demsforronpaul.org/

Fuck you really got me there!!!

:lol:

I don't have to own you , you own yourself. :lol:
From TrafficEstimate.com

www.republicansforobama.org
Estimate 36,700 visits in the previous 30 days.

www.demsforronpaul.org
Sorry, cannot estimate number of visits to that site at this time

When TrafficEstimate can't estimate the number of visits, that's because they're not registering any hits. I think Carlos mentioned something like under one thousand.

[PetreTG]

The New Republic
Angry White Man by James Kirchick
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation wrote of "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."
BTW ... you like The NEW REPUBLIC ?

Reputable sight is it ???

Then you must agree with this article too then ... :lol:

--------------
<table class="centerTable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>The New Republic
Race Man
by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008


</td></tr><tr><td><table class="leftContent" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/single_line.gif</td></tr><tr><td><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/discuss.gif</td><td>DISCUSS ARTICLE [747] (http://www.tnr.com/talkback.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304)</td><td>|</td><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/print.gif</td><td>PRINT (http://www.tnr.com/print)</td><td>|</td><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/email.gif</td><td>EMAIL ARTICLE (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void%20window.open%28%27/components/email.aspx?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&emailbrand=tnr&referrer=http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304%27,%20%27%27,%20%27width=450,height=4 10,location=no,toolbar=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=ye s,resizable=no%27%29)</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr><tr><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/single_line.gif</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr><tr><td>After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.


Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/) the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.


The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted (http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/_the_democratic_campaign_has.html) the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.


Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.
More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.



</td></tr></tbody></table>

[atomicdOGg34]

ron paul the racist:

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1692

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=137617

[Black Market Baby]

That site has a good video about what Ahmedinejad really said also.

Good stuff.

http://muslimmedianetwork.com/mmn/?p=1691

[Arben]

Ron Paul the racist:
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/art.essay.ronpaul.polreport.jpg

[phonetap]

the rest of that article on ron paul:

continued: Page 2

The New Republic
Angry White Man by James Kirchick
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008

To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books.
The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the"War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."
The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."
Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report,published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."
This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter,titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."
Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

[phonetap]

page 3:

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's "old colleague," Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for "speak out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby." In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of [I]National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."
The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state," and a 1990 newsletter discussed the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise." Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."


Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States." A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by "patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson"--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: "I can't vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police's tricks and crimes," the newsletter said, adding, "Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL."


[B]When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.
Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment--because "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." North is perhaps best known for Gary North's Remnant Review, a "Christian and pro free-market" newsletter. In a 1983 letter Paul wrote on behalf of an organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, "Perhaps you already read in Gary North's Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse."


.

[phonetap]

page 4:

Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker."
From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.
Corrections:This article originally stated that The Nation praised Ron Paul's "full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." The magazine did not praise Paul's position, but merely described it. The piece also originally misidentified ABC's Jake Tapper as Jack. In addition, Paul was a surgeon in the Air Force, not the Army, as the piece originally stated. It also stated that David Duke competed in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. In fact, he was a Republican candidate in an open primary. The article has been corrected.
James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic

[PetreTG]

The New Republic
Angry White Man by James Kirchick
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation wrote of "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."
BTW ... you like The NEW REPUBLIC ?

Reputable sight is it ???

Then you must agree with this article too then ... :lol:

--------------
<table class="centerTable" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>The New Republic
Race Man
by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008


</td></tr><tr><td><table class="leftContent" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/single_line.gif</td></tr><tr><td><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/discuss.gif</td><td>DISCUSS ARTICLE [747] (http://www.tnr.com/talkback.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304)</td><td>|</td><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/print.gif</td><td>PRINT (http://www.tnr.com/print)</td><td>|</td><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/email.gif</td><td>EMAIL ARTICLE (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void%20window.open%28%27/components/email.aspx?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&emailbrand=tnr&referrer=http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304%27,%20%27%27,%20%27width=450,height=4 10,location=no,toolbar=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=ye s,resizable=no%27%29)</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr><tr><td>http://www.tnr.com/images/single_line.gif</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr><tr><td>After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.


Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/) the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.


The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted (http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/_the_democratic_campaign_has.html) the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.


Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.
More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.


</td></tr></tbody></table>

[atomicdOGg34]

should i start posting articles about rezko, that sinclair dude, the NAFTA thing, some muslim articles too?

this is ridiculous

paul the gay hater, right

the same guy who says, leave it up to the states for gay marriage

if he really hated gays he'd ban it

[PetreTG]

Intellectually dishonest James Kirchick

James Kirchick of the New Republic - home of the odious Jason Zengerle - offers "Angry White Man/The bigoted past of Ron Paul", an attempt by the Beltway establishment to sink his candidacy by revealing excerpts from his old newsletters. Apparently much or all of it was ghostwritten, and the campaign tries to portray him as a (per Kirchick) "naive, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf". To a good extent that doesn't wash, and many of the quotes provided are indeed very questionable in and of themselves. (The Ron Paul campaign responds to the TNR piece here. See also the response from Thomas DiLorenzo (not Lew Rockwell as previously stated), in which he implies he might sue Kirchik for libel; the article implies that DiLorenzo is a neo-Confederate due to a conference he spoke at, when the conference actually dealt with the pre-Civil War northern secessionist movement.)

However, other quotes from the TNR piece beg for context, and others are craftily spun in order to make Paul look as bad as possible. Consider this:

That same year [1990], citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false.

There are at least three things wrong with that.

1. Per the Red Cross (link):

There are no known cases of saliva by itself spreading HIV... However, because there could be a risk of blood contact during prolonged open-mouth kissing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends against doing this with a partner who has HIV.

So, outright calling it "false" isn't exactly honest, not that TNR has much familiarity with that concept.

2. In 1990, how many studies had been done on transmission via saliva? In 1990 - when the excerpt was written - was it still a very open question? [UPDATE: a search of the contemporaneous NYT and medical literature at pubmed.gov shows mixed results, with some saying it could be transmitted via saliva and some saying it's very unlikely; one HIV+ person was convicted of attempted murder after biting someone.]

3. Just because someone "cites" something doesn't mean that they agree with it.

Did Kirchick make a "mistake"? Or was he intentionally trying to deceive by confusing what we (mostly) know now with what was known in 1990?

Kirchick goes on:

The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States."

I guess that reasonable people can disagree on whether the CFR and other Rockefeller-linked groups are just friendly social groups or whether they do attempt to run matters, but I suggest being very suspicious of hacks who try to claim the former. As for the Treaty, consider this:

...the White House in late 1977 directed the well-connected former chairman of the finance committee of the Democratic National Committee, S. Lee Kling, to set up the "Committee of Americans for the Canal Treaties, Inc." (COACT). To anyone not aware of Kling's past or his mandate from the White House, COACT seemed like a grass*roots, nonpartisan effort on behalf of the treaties... the list of COACT members in*cluded David Rockefeller (chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank)...

DR was also there in 1999 when Carter officially handed the Canal over (link), and he has a link to the co-negotiator of the treaty (link).

And:

What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America.

Being interviewed by someone doesn't mean you agree with everything they say. And, while Alex Jones is a bit of a showman and does have some far-out-there ideas, others are not. And, unlike someone like Kirchick, he's willing to buck the establishment.

Note also this email he sent to a RP supporter a few weeks ago:

I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist.

The recipient goes on to call Kirchick a "muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite"; as for the part about "dishonoring" TNR with his presence, I'd say he fits right in.

UPDATE: John Gibson of Fox News did a radio interview with Kurchik here. It contains this absolutely incredible statement:

"When someone mentions the Trilaterial Commission in nefarious terms, you know that they're a little kooky... ...The Bilderbergers, that's a real out there conspiracy theory..."

Then, he pretended that Bohemian Grove was just a "men's social club in Northern California".

This guy is a complete establishment suck-up and apologist. While some of the theories about those groups are indeed out there, pretending they're just happy friendly social groups is something that no one who isn't just trying to suck-up should engage in. Also, he appears to be a fan of Rudy Giuliani; at the last link Rudy gives an award to David Rockefeller and mentions all the groups with which he's been associated, including the CFR and the Bilderbergers.

TNR has released some scanned copies of the newsletters here. I'm going to leave it to others to look through all of them but the first one in the "Conspiracies" section is from 1978 - well before some of RP's supporters were born - and it contains highlighted sections that apparently we're supposed to shocked at, such the fact that David Rockefeller is linked to politicians and the news media or that the true owners of the Panama Canal are not just the supposed owners. So? Another one in that section, a solicitation letter, is so over the top that I'm almost positive that Ron Paul himself didn't write it, and I don't think too many politician write their own solicitation letters.

UPDATE 2: This has got to be a joke. Little Green Footballs - added as a show of support to this site's "blogroll" after some incident a few years ago and just now removed - offers "Ron Paul's Personal Details in Racist Newsletter" (link). Apparently the fact that whoever wrote a paragraph knew that Ron Paul had grandchildren strongly implies that the author was Paul himself and not a surrogate.

UPDATE 3: Andrew Sullivan - someone who wouldn't last more than a week as a pundit if he allowed open comments - flees the ship for USS McCain:

After the awful news about Ron Paul's ugly, repellent past newsletters, I find myself rooting again for the man who was my second choice.

UPDATE 4: Via this guy in the comment here consider this from their documents page:

A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier.

The 1989 PDF (link) only "compares" their cases and points out liberal hypocrisy, calling out TNR by name (probably why they highlighted it; bolding added):

Would the New Republic, which has been sickenly pompous on Rushdie and in its hymns to secular humanism, defend things it would find heretical? The answer is no. This liberal magazine has past defended Canada's "anti-hate" law, which was used to fine and jail a Canadian author, Ernst Zundel, who questioned the historical reality of the Holocaust. Liberal newspapers like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe have also praised the Canadian law and this prosecution. I'll believe Establishment liberals are really committed to free speech when I see Norman Mailer and his cohorts wearing "I am Ernst Zundel" buttons and holding readings of his works. I personally am offended by writings advocating fascism, socialism, Communism, and other forms of special-interest big government. Many people understandably find Zundel's writings offensive. But his case is no different in principle from Rushdie's except that Zundel is poor and in jail, and Rushdie is rich and protected.

[atomicdOGg34]

BTW ... you like The NEW REPUBLIC ?

Reputable sight is it ???

Then you must agree with this article too then ... :lol:

--------------
<TABLE class=centerTable cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>The New Republic
Race Man
by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.

Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008



</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE class=leftContent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.tnr.com/images/single_line.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/discuss.gif</TD><TD>DISCUSS ARTICLE [747] (http://www.tnr.com/talkback.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304)</TD><TD>|</TD><TD>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/print.gif</TD><TD>PRINT (http://www.tnr.com/print)</TD><TD>|</TD><TD>http://www.tnr.com/images/icons/email.gif</TD><TD>EMAIL ARTICLE (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void%20window.open%28%27/components/email.aspx?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304&emailbrand=tnr&referrer=http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304%27,%20%27%27,%20%27width=450,height=4 10,location=no,toolbar=no,menubar=no,scrollbars=ye s,resizable=no%27%29)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>http://www.tnr.com/images/single_line.gif</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR><TR><TD>After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.


Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/) the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.


The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted (http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/02/_the_democratic_campaign_has.html) the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.


Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.
More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

:lol:

i wont be surprised when phonetap somehow tries to justify it as a good thing

[PetreTG]

should i start posting articles about rezko, that sinclair dude, the NAFTA thing, some muslim articles too?

this is ridiculous

paul the gay hater, right

the same guy who says, leave it up to the states for gay marriage

if he really hated gays he'd ban it

PTap doesn't have a clue ... he's grasping for straws on one 30 year old article trying to smear a good honest man .... how sad.

[PetreTG]

:lol:

i wont be surprised when phonetap somehow tries to justify it as a good thing

The White Shedevil Hillary made him do it!!! :lol:

[atomicdOGg34]

obama campaigns with gay basher:

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/65942/

[Arben]

Obama should thank Ron Paul. When Obama's sitting in the oval office, Ron Paul will be doing nothing from his congressional seat, giving Obama more time to address real issues.

[PetreTG]

THE MAN OF THE HOUR ... THE MAN OBAMA's CHURCH GAVE THE LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD TO ...

a salam a lakum dumbass

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dNuq8hhwj4M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dNuq8hhwj4M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[atomicdOGg34]

Obama should thank Ron Paul. When Obama's sitting in the oval office, Ron Paul will be doing nothing from his congressional seat, giving Obama more time to address real issues.

like change right?

or was it hope this week?

can you even sign hope into law?

can you make employers provide hope mandatory?

[Arben]

THE MAN OF THE HOUR ... THE MAN OBAMA's CHURCH GAVE THE LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD TO ...

a salam a lakum dumbass

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dNuq8hhwj4M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dNuq8hhwj4M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
http://www.fightbeat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24206

[PetreTG]

Obama should thank Ron Paul. When Obama's sitting in the oval office, Ron Paul will be doing nothing from his congressional seat, giving Obama more time to address real issues. Yeah like how we can give money to the UN and College for Illegal aliens ...

May be your dumbest post ever Arben. :kick:

[Arben]

like change right?

or was it hope this week?

can you even sign hope into law?

can you make employers provide hope mandatory?
If that's all you can make fun of Obama about, then he's a happy camper.

[phonetap]

PTap doesn't have a clue ... he's grasping for straws on one 30 year old article trying to smear a good honest man .... how sad.

an honest man who hasn't one piece of legislation in his entire life...and this get nothing done guy, you wanted to be the next president of the united states...:laughing:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/#cnnSTCVideo

the funniest thing about this interview isn't the denial but ron pauls insistance he would open up the jail cells and let out thousands upon thousands of black convicted drug dealers. that will sure as hell get him elected...he's a drug dealers best friend...:laughing:

[Arben]

Yeah like how we can give money to the UN and College for Illegal aliens ...

May be your dumbest post ever Arben. :kick:
:lol: :lol: :lol:

You just really don't let go, kiddo.

[atomicdOGg34]

im glad some people are awake

got this off: http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2006/12/obama_called_me.html

"Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061211/NEWS01/212110365/-1/NEWS08),” Barack Obama told ecstatic New Hampshire voters yesterday. Being one of those voters who probably wouldn't vote for him because of his politics, we were naturally offended at his suggestion that people like us are racists.

[phonetap]

like change right?

or was it hope this week?

can you even sign hope into law?

can you make employers provide hope mandatory?

you truly are a product from the shallow end of the gene pool....:doh:

[atomicdOGg34]

an honest man who hasn't one piece of legislation in his entire life...and this get nothing done guy, you wanted to be the next president of the united states...:laughing:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/#cnnSTCVideo

the funniest thing about this interview isn't the denial but ron pauls insistance he would open up the jail cells and let out thousands upon thousands of black convicted drug dealers. that will sure as hell get him elected...he's a drug dealers best friend...:laughing:

:doh:

why dont you atleast try to attack the mans position and not whatever form of his position you decide to just make up

[PetreTG]

:doh:

why dont you atleast try to attack the mans position and not whatever form of his position you decide to just make up

It's more fun for him to circle jerk with a 30 year old article someone else wrote and completely avoid any tangible reason to support Obama. And you'll notice he never could defend Obama's church.

There's hope for Tap yet ... I believe it in my heart. :clap:

[phonetap]

:doh:

why dont you atleast try to attack the mans position and not whatever form of his position you decide to just make up

paul did say he would release ALL non-violent convicted drug dealers from prision after he became elected. :lol:

[atomicdOGg34]

you truly are a product from the shallow end of the gene pool....:doh:

right, you still havent answered the question

i love how you try to prove a point:

"hey PT what legislation has obama passed or worked on that make you think he can do what you say he can?"

"listen kid, what has ron paul ever done?"

"well that doesnt really answer th..."

"listen kid, dont make PT school you bro, just take your lunch box and go home"

"that still doesnt answer....."

"listen kid, obama 1- paul 0, ok bro, scoreboard, obama has passed 1 piece of legislation and paul 0, thats why you should vote for him, QED..... fucken honkey"

so basically after all that, im getting your voting for him because he passed one bill? a bill that was just a remodel of a bill that already existed?

heres how things usually go:

"hey PT why do you support obama?"

"well he worked on..... then he..... he has experience doing this....... and BECAUSE of those things i think he can bring positive change"

see thats how it works

[atomicdOGg34]

paul did say he would release ALL non-violent convicted drug dealers from prision after he became elected. :lol:

yeah?

im sure there isnt thousands upon thousands of non-violent drug dealers

the ones that are should get out, they didnt commit any crime

[slystaff]

THE MAN OF THE HOUR ... THE MAN OBAMA's CHURCH GAVE THE LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD TO ...

a salam a lakum dumbass


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dNuq8hhwj4M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT>:lol: Sadly I still don't see him as a bad guy.</P>
You see I wouldn't have put it quite the way he did...as I wouldn't blanket an entire race as devils....and it's not so much the way today...but from the perspective of history, especially in America concerning the treatment of blacks over the centuries (and treatment I and friends and family received in England up until as recently as the late 80s, early 90s) I can understand why someone would be of that opinion.

Shit what other race has groups (WORLDWIDE) that would happily kill people just because they are of another race? Not because of want of money or land...but simply because they are of another race?

Which race has teh quivalent of a KKK, BNP, NF, Combat 18, Neo-Nazi etc?

For the record...the NOI is wrong to blanket the entire race as a race of devils...I don't agree with this, but historically...even up to very recent history (and from my own experiences) it's very easy to see how someone could come to that conclusion.

The difference between the NOI's position and true racism...is that the NOI has reached this position because of a REACTION to centuries of mis-treatment.

The KKK, for example has reached this position simply because of scorn and disdain for an apparently lesser form of human..who never did them anything..just because they are different.

If people can't see the VAST difference...then they are dumb or willfully blind.



As I said before...a Lion cannot complain and has no moral authority to complain if the Antelope says that he hates him. None.

Now I say that and maintain that I am in no way racist...but if someone can't understand why some blacks view whites in a very negative light...you've got to be kidding me.

[slystaff]

I see a storm brewing....(why don't I just leave these topics alone! :doh: :dunno: )

[TFK]

:lol: Sadly I still don't see him as a bad guy.

You see I wouldn't have put it quite the way he did...as I wouldn't blanket an entire race as devils....and it's not so much the way today...but from the perspective of history, especially in America concerning the treatment of blacks over the centuries (and treatment I and friends and family received in England up until as recently as the late 80s, early 90s) I can understand why someone would be of that opinion.

Shit what other race has groups (WORLDWIDE) that would happily kill people just because they are of another race? Not because of want of money or land...but simply because they are of another race?

Which race has teh quivalent of a KKK, BNP, NF, Combat 18, Neo-Nazi etc?

For the record...the NOI is wrong to blanket the entire race as a race of devils...I don't agree with this, but historically...even up to very recent history (and from my own experiences) it's very easy to see how someone could come to that conclusion.

The difference between the NOI's position and true racism...is that the NOI has reached this position because of a REACTION to centuries of mis-treatment.

The KKK, for example has reached this position simply because of scorn and disdain for an apparently lesser form of human..who never did them anything..just because they are different.

If people can't see the VAST difference...then they are dumb or willfully blind.



As I said before...a Lion cannot complain and has no moral authority to complain if the Antelope says that he hates him. None.

Now I say that and maintain that I am in no way racist...but if someone can't understand why some blacks view whites in a very negative light...you've got to be kidding me.


Wow, Slystaff just went and justified racism against whites, and claimed support to one of the biggest racists in history, Farakhan, and then says...


Now I say that and maintain that I am in no way racist


Unbelievable.

TFK

[atomicdOGg34]

Wow, Slystaff just went and justified racism against whites, and claimed support to one of the biggest racists in history, Farakhan, and then says...




Unbelievable.

TFK

its not racism if its against whites

[slystaff]

Wow, Slystaff just went and justified racism against whites, and claimed support to one of the biggest racists in history, Farakhan, and then says...




Unbelievable.

TFKI don't agree with racism against anyone. Racism is an ACT. But I'm saying that (analogy coming........) disliking someone because they kept bullying you at school, and disliking someone because they are fat......are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

[atomicdOGg34]

I don't agree with racism against anyone. Racism is an ACT. But I'm saying that (analogy coming........) disliking someone because they kept bullying you at school, and disliking someone because they are fat......are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

racism is not an act

racism is an ideology

edit: you dont arrest people for racism, you arrest them for whatever crime they did

[TFK]

I don't agree with racism against anyone. Racism is an ACT. But I'm saying that (analogy coming........) disliking someone because they kept bullying you at school, and disliking someone because they are fat......are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS


You don't agree with racism against anyone, but you sure went out of your way to justify Farakhan's racism.

TFK

[atomicdOGg34]

I don't agree with racism against anyone. Racism is an ACT. But I'm saying that (analogy coming........) disliking someone because they kept bullying you at school, and disliking someone because they are fat......are VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

hate is hate bro

who cares what the reason is

you cant punish people for what they are thinking

[slystaff]

hate is hate bro

who cares what the reason is

you cant punish people for what they are thinkingDo you really believe that?

[atomicdOGg34]

Do you really believe that?

if i kill you because your black is that a worse crime than if i kill someone because i want their money? and should it have a heavier punishment?

[slystaff]

if i kill you because your black is that a worse crime than if i kill someone because i want their money? and should it have a heavier punishment?If I kill someone because they killed my wife, vs killing someone because I was jealous of their good looks....do you think those two crimes are equivalent?

[atomicdOGg34]

If I kill someone because they killed my wife, vs killing someone because I was jealous of their good looks....do you think those two crimes are equivalent?

if its in self defense then no

if you just kill the person for revenge, then yes

keeping all the emotions out of it, you feel bad for the guy whos wife got killed but you cant just go and kill someone yourself

[slystaff]

if its in self defense then no

if you just kill the person for revenge, then yes

keeping all the emotions out of it, you feel bad for the guy whos wife got killed but you cant just go and kill someone yourselfBut ethically...are the two crimes equivalent?

Secondly...pumping up black pride CAN be viewed as self defense. Teh best form of defense is attack...and blacks wouldn't feel the need to defend themselves if they weren't first attacked.

Now times have changed (obama being on teh verge of teh presidency is testament to that) but people like Farrakhan firing back at the same people that would have seen him as sub human in his youth is only a natural reaction.

[slystaff]

By the way Atomicdogg, I appreciate the discussion and you've really impressed me recently with your arguments and conduct on this and the other threads. It's a pleasure debating with you,

[atomicdOGg34]

But ethically...are the two crimes equivalent?

Secondly...pumping up black pride CAN be viewed as self defense. Teh best form of defense is attack...and blacks wouldn't feel the need to defend themselves if they weren't first attacked.

Now times have changed (obama being on teh verge of teh presidency is testament to that) but people like Farrakhan firing back at the same people that would have seen him as sub human in his youth is only a natural reaction.

its easier to justify killing someone if they killed your wife

in the end though you still killed a man, just as you would have in the other scenario

the only difference is your thought process

as for the other part of your post?? WHAT??

thats the problem with racism, a couple of people treat you bad and you lash out at the group

if you didnt think of people as groups we wouldnt have racism, it wouldnt be "those white guys" or "those black guys" or whatever

itd be just "those guys"

[TFK]

its easier to justify killing someone if they killed your wife

in the end though you still killed a man, just as you would have in the other scenario

the only difference is your thought process

as for the other part of your post?? WHAT??

thats the problem with racism, a couple of people treat you bad and you lash out at the group

if you didnt think of people as groups we wouldnt have racism, it wouldnt be "those white guys" or "those black guys" or whatever

itd be just "those guys"


I think Slystaff did a pretty good job of exposing his racism today. His post justifying Farakhan's racism, and racism against whites in general, is sure to come back to haunt him.

He's probably gonna spend so much time trying to backpedal out of his racism, that he'll never give me a tangible reason to vote for Obama.


TFK

[Arben]

I still don't understand why Farrakhan is an issue when Obama publicly denounced him.

[I and I]

I still don't understand why Farrakhan is an issue when Obama publicly denounced him.

Because the U.S. media is racist.

Hence the whole trying to portray him as a muslim (even though there is no such thing as "muslim wardrobe"

If he is black, he has to be muslim right. :rolleyes:

[Tyler Durden]

I think Slystaff did a pretty good job of exposing his racism today. His post justifying Farakhan's racism, and racism against whites in general, is sure to come back to haunt him.

He's probably gonna spend so much time trying to backpedal out of his racism, that he'll never give me a tangible reason to vote for Obama.


TFK

No doubt, what kind of person cries against racism and then defends a person for the same actions just because he is black? It just doesn't make any sense, his accent fooled me :lol:

[Tyler Durden]

Because the U.S. media is racist.

Hence the whole trying to portray him as a muslim (even though there is no such thing as "muslim wardrobe"

If he is black, he has to be muslim right. :rolleyes:

I see it the same way as if you heard Hillary getting support from David Duke. It would be newsworthy just like this is.

[Anthony]

Damn this thread is ugly. Dont forget that we are all still boxing fans. :clap: :clap:

[Tyler Durden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzaYrB9aEj8

:rolleyes:

[Anthony]

:rolleyes:Thanx

[atomicdOGg34]

all sorts of problems for obama

first his foreign policy advisor calls hillary a "monster" and has to resign, but worse theres some reports that what obama is saying on the campaign trail about iraq isnt what his advisors are saying to overseas leaders

apparently obama has no intention of getting the troops out like he says he does

saw this on msnbc news this morning

[LOK]

all sorts of problems for obama

first his foreign policy advisor calls hillary a "monster" and has to resign, but worse theres some reports that what obama is saying on the campaign trail about iraq isnt what his advisors are saying to overseas leaders

apparently obama has no intention of getting the troops out like he says he does

saw this on msnbc news this morning

so you'd rather Hillary atomic? or McCain?

[puerto rock]

McCain is such a joke. Talk about somebody who just does NOT look presidential. Lol... The guy had trouble walking down the steps when Bush endorsed him.


Just another right wing war monger who wants tax cuts for the rich. Surely the people have learned their lesson with Dubya, right???....


Lets all hope and pray...

[slystaff]

McCain is such a joke. Talk about somebody who just does NOT look presidential. Lol... The guy had trouble walking down the steps when Bush endorsed him.


Just another right wing war monger who wants tax cuts for the rich. Surely the people have learned their lesson with Dubya, right???....


Lets all hope and pray...Sadly Americans never learn. They claimed they learned from the first Bush term and then what did the idiots do? Vote him in again!

At least the first time more americans actually voted for Gore, and so they could blame the Electoral College system but what's the excuse for 2004?:lol:

McCain will beat Clinton (hopefully) or Obama (which would be a real shame) and the republicans will get a 3rd consecutive term making it 6 terms out of the last 8!

[PetreTG]

McCain is such a joke. Talk about somebody who just does NOT look presidential. Lol... The guy had trouble walking down the steps when Bush endorsed him.


Just another right wing war monger who wants tax cuts for the rich. Surely the people have learned their lesson with Dubya, right???....


Lets all hope and pray...

The guys campaign is a weak as he is.

They made damn sure the weakest possible opponent would be there to stay out of the Dems way.

Next stop ... the Dems completely dismantle the constitution. Freedom of speach and the right to bear arms will be first on the chopping block.

[jaws1216]

The guys campaign is a weak as he is.

They made damn sure the weakest possible opponent would be there to stay out of the Dems way.

Next stop ... the Dems completely dismantle the constitution. Freedom of speach and the right to bear arms will be first on the chopping block.

yeah cause I can't think of a single group more against free speech than the liberals that wrote it into our constitution:doh:

[slystaff]

Reasons to vote for Obama:


Universal healthcare without a universal mandate: best solution possible
End the war in Iraq
End the generous tax cuts for the rich and assist the middle class
Education reform: giving a government grant (for want of a better way of putting it) in return for country service
Good judgement and the courage to express it (the war in Iraq when the concept was popular)
Intelligence
The Ability to reach out to all types of Americans, regardless of race, creed, political affiliation: Crossover appeal
Due to his oratory talents, likability, stature and charm will be an asset to the US in terms of foreign relations.

[PetreTG]

Reasons to vote for Obama:

Universal healthcare without a universal mandate: best solution possible
End the war in Iraq
End the generous tax cuts for the rich and assist the middle class
Education reform: giving a government grant (for want of a better way of putting it) in return for country service
Good judgement and the courage to express it (the war in Iraq when the concept was popular)
Intelligence
The Ability to reach out to all types of Americans, regardless of race, creed, political affiliation: Crossover appeal
Due to his oratory talents, likability, stature and charm will be an asset to the US in terms of foreign relations.

Universal bankruptcy for the American Economy , lower standard of healthcare , worst solution possible for our current economic plight.
By not showing up to vote ?
With the largest budget of all candidates and new taxes like Global Tax ?
Good judgment , you mean like hiring criminals for his campaign finance, going to a very racially charged church that honors Farrakhan , doing business with the likes of Rezko, Allying himself with members of the Weathermen ... Good judgment ???
See above for examples of lack of intelligent planning and poor intelligence in judgment.
The last 2 can be summed up by saying .... he makes my coochie wet. :kick:

[atomicdOGg34]

his UHC plan does have mandates btw
edit: and he isnt ending anything in iraq

[atomicdOGg34]

so you'd rather Hillary atomic? or McCain?

out of those 2

mccain

[Baron]

Sadly Americans never learn. They claimed they learned from the first Bush term and then what did the idiots do? Vote him in again!

At least the first time more americans actually voted for Gore, and so they could blame the Electoral College system but what's the excuse for 2004?:lol:

McCain will beat Clinton (hopefully) or Obama (which would be a real shame) and the republicans will get a 3rd consecutive term making it 6 terms out of the last 8!John Kerry.

[puerto rock]

his UHC plan does have mandates btw
edit: and he isnt ending anything in iraq

I think Obama is more LIKELY to end the war in Iraq than McCain would be.

[puerto rock]

The guys campaign is a weak as he is.

They made damn sure the weakest possible opponent would be there to stay out of the Dems way.

Next stop ... the Dems completely dismantle the constitution. Freedom of speach and the right to bear arms will be first on the chopping block.

I'll be honest with you, Ron Paul was the ONLY Republican candidate that I liked.

What people see in John McCain I will NEVER know.

Obama is not perfect at all, and his policies are only slightly better(The spending he wants really kills him), but nut job McCain is the WORST possible person for the top office in this country.


Why do people like this guy???...:dunno:

[PetreTG]

I'll be honest with you, Ron Paul was the ONLY Republican candidate that I liked.

What people see in John McCain I will NEVER know.

Obama is not perfect at all, and his policies are only slightly better(The spending he wants really kills him), but nut job McCain is the WORST possible person for the top office in this country.


Why do people like this guy???...:dunno:

He is a nut , no doubt, which is why labeled him Insane McCain.

But , I believe with the current problems the Repubs have , McCain would be the least likely to do more REAL damage or atleast the most damage. I believe none have the balls for the solutions this country really needs.

[TFK]

Reasons to vote for Obama


Universal healthcare without a universal mandate: best solution possible. (It's not the government's job to provide healthcare, and we as a country just can't afford it.)
End the war in Iraq (No he won't, don't be foolish.)
End the generous tax cuts for the rich and assist the middle class (In other words, he's gonna raise taxes. Just what we need.)
Education reform: giving a government grant (for want of a better way of putting it) in return for country service
Good judgement and the courage to express it (the war in Iraq when the concept was popular) (An admitted drug user? Was he using good judgement then?)
Intelligence (That's debatable)
The Ability to reach out to all types of Americans, regardless of race, creed, political affiliation: Crossover appeal (Buzzwords)
Due to his oratory talents, likability, stature and charm will be an asset to the US in terms of foreign relations. (Doubtful)

TFK

[atomicdOGg34]

again his UHC plan does have mandates

[Rabid Kimba]

Sadly Americans never learn. They claimed they learned from the first Bush term and then what did the idiots do? Vote him in again!

At least the first time more americans actually voted for Gore, and so they could blame the Electoral College system but what's the excuse for 2004?:lol:

McCain will beat Clinton (hopefully) or Obama (which would be a real shame) and the republicans will get a 3rd consecutive term making it 6 terms out of the last 8!

I don't get your logic, Sly.

You wish McCain to beat Clinton but not Obama???

You are making no sense.

Clinton and Obama are almost identical in political ideologies.

McCain is the total opposite.

You are an odd fellow, Sly...I'm glad you are NOT American.

:lol:

[PetreTG]

again his UHC plan does have mandates

It's just more proof Obama's supporters don't know fuck about what he stands for.

Just "Change we can believe in" :doh:

[atomicdOGg34]

we do have some hope

mccain might pick huckabee as his VP

mccain says he would sign fairtax into law

thatd be great

[PetreTG]

I don't get your logic, Sly.

You wish McCain to beat Clinton but not Obama???

You are making no sense.

Clinton and Obama are almost identical in political ideologies.

McCain is the total opposite.

You are an odd fellow, Sly...I'm glad you are NOT American.

:lol:

It's becoming more and more likely Insane McCain will need to beat Obama AND Clinton.

[atomicdOGg34]

It's becoming more and more likely Insane McCain will need to beat Obama AND Clinton.

only if hillary wins the top spot, then she might ask obama

but if he gets fucked out of the nom then i doubt hed say yes, never know though

i also doubt hed ask her if he won

[TFK]

I don't get your logic, Sly.

You wish McCain to beat Clinton but not Obama???

You are making no sense.

Clinton and Obama are almost identical in political ideologies.

McCain is the total opposite.




Hmmmm, kinda makes you think, doesn't it?


TFK

[puerto rock]

The only way I think McCain wins is if the nominee is Hillary(Even then its not guarantee because McCain is such a lame candidate who couldn't even beat Bush back in 2000).


I can't see McCain beating Obama. Like Obama or not, he does have a considerable following and compared to McCain, its not a case of either being more qualified than other, but a case of whom is the most LIKABLE of the candidates. McCain has been there forever it seems and even a good number of Republicans are SICK of him and wish he'd just go away.


I doubt Obama will be able to make any SERIOUS changes. The only change there is that we'll have a President who is African-American, eloquent(Bush was anything but), and who will end the tax cuts for the rich, and HOPEFULLY(Keyword) give them to the middle class instead. I don't think Obama is the greatest or anything, but it would be refreshing to see a new face in the White House as opposed to the same old, tired faces like McCain the Insane, and Hillary, who's already been in the White House 8 years. Its just time for a new face, regardless of whether or not that will bring us "real change".


Because we live in a country that prefers to play things safe, its difficult to bring about real change as far as how things are done. I mean looking at a hypothetical race between McCain and Clinton for example, McCain would win that one simply because Hillary is a woman, period. Neither of those 2 is better than the other one. One of them is a power hungry bitch who seems to be willing to cut as many throats as possible to win, while the other one is an insane, senile fool who has no clue about the economy in this country and has gone on to suggest that we should stay in Iraq for 100 years if necessary(Again, what people see in this guy I'll never know). Neither is better than the other. Its all about playing the game here. McCain makes me so sick that I lose my appetite, and Hillary, well is just coniving. Out of the 3, Obama is the most LIKABLE person(Again, I'm not saying that means he'll be a great president). We have to settle for what we can get. And in this case out of the 3, give me Obama any day.

[slystaff]

I don't get your logic, Sly.

You wish McCain to beat Clinton but not Obama???

You are making no sense.

Clinton and Obama are almost identical in political ideologies.

McCain is the total opposite.

You are an odd fellow, Sly...I'm glad you are NOT American.

:lol:As I mentioned to someone else, political ideologies is only HALF of the story. Personality, character, judgement, charm, potential....are also things to consider.

[Rabid Kimba]

Hmmmm, kinda makes you think, doesn't it?


TFK

Yes, Sly basically said he is a conservative sympathizer (by stating that he would pick McCain over Clinton)...but is willing to go with one of the two liberals because one happens to be black (Obama).

Very obvious.

:popcorn:

[slystaff]

Hmmmm, kinda makes you think, doesn't it?


TFKhmmmm?

Ok...I admit it...I don't want to see a female President. Republican vs Woman...easy decision.

[Rabid Kimba]

Nah, I think Sly just hates bitches in power.

:lol:

[Rabid Kimba]

hmmmm?

Ok...I admit it...I don't want to see a female President. Republican vs Woman...easy decision.

Thank you for at last coming clean and being honest.

:lol:

[slystaff]

Thank you for at last coming clean and being honest.

:lol:I've been honest all the time, imbecile.

[Rabid Kimba]

I have clearly stated that I voted for Clinton...and if she doesn't get the nomination...I'll support Obama.

Because unlike Sly, I go with political ideologies. fuck the charisma, charm, personalities, etc...

If it's a robot but with my beliefs, that particular robot is going to get my vote.

:popcorn:

[Rabid Kimba]

I've been honest all the time, imbecile.

Now, now, no need for that...it only shows me one thing, and one thing only...you are getting mad.

Take it easy and take a chill pill.

:lol:

[slystaff]

Now, now, no need for that...it only shows me one thing, and one thing only...you are getting mad.

Take it easy and take a chill pill.

:lol:The "wink" as the post emoticon should have tipped you off that it wasn't an angry post...lunatic.

[Rabid Kimba]

lunatic.

See?

:dunno: :lol:

[Tyler Durden]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70nMudv0ADY

[PetreTG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70nMudv0ADY

"First of all , we will ask him (Obama) a question ... If da bible is bad for you and you should not follow it , why you filthy liar you say dat you are a person who convert to christianity ?"... "No muslim will attack this man because he is a muslim and because as you see they are defending him"

:lol:

[PetreTG]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MnWQ3zSZg24"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MnWQ3zSZg24" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[PetreTG]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Prhnc2fxAzg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Prhnc2fxAzg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:doh:

[PetreTG]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lDaO7N-JujU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lDaO7N-JujU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:eek:

[mexican wedding shirt]

Is it true that in Obama's book he said if he had to choose between American and Islam it would be Islam? :lol:

Also, that is undeniably fucked up that his church gave the "Lifetime achievement award" to Louis Farrakhan. I mean wtf?

[PetreTG]

Is it true that in Obama's book he said if he had to choose between American and Islam it would be Islam? :lol:

Also, that is undeniably fucked up that his church gave the "Lifetime achievement award" to Louis Farrakhan. I mean wtf?

Yep ... his place of worship where a man holds his deepest most personal convictions. :doh:

I'm sure when they were honoring Farrakhan , Obama did something similar to this , instead of clapping or giving the AMEN's and Praise the Lords that the entire congregation most certainly was in the midst of the presentation ... :doh:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N8QCkgg5Kjo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N8QCkgg5Kjo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JmHtGQq-z_Y"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JmHtGQq-z_Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


:lol:

[Arben]

You've really gotten pathetic.

[mexican wedding shirt]

You've really gotten pathetic.

Don't you think it's a little worrying that a potential US president states that he would choose Islam over America? :lol:

[slystaff]

Don't you think it's a little worrying that a potential US president states that he would choose Islam over America? :lol::rolleyes:

He's a Christian, how many times does he have to tell everyone this?

[Black Market Baby]

Is it true that in Obama's book he said if he had to choose between American and Islam it would be Islam? :lol:

Also, that is undeniably fucked up that his church gave the "Lifetime achievement award" to Louis Farrakhan. I mean wtf?

Did it say that? Can I see a quote? That's a new one to me.

[mexican wedding shirt]

:rolleyes:

He's a Christian, how many times does he have to tell everyone this?

Are you serious?

I could start telling everyone that I am a Christian tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that I am actually an atheist :lol:

[slystaff]

Are you serious?

I could start telling everyone that I am a Christian tomorrow, that wouldn't change the fact that I am actually an atheist :lol:Something you may not know...

a true Muslim would NEVER say that he's a Christian...EVER!

[slystaff]

:lol: Since your domestic troubles you've turned into a true cunt.

[atomicdOGg34]

i dont know whats funnier, obama not participating in the pledge or the horrible rendition of it that woman gave

:lol:

[atomicdOGg34]

how about a real patriot?

maybe someone like this:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DggGZqYebrQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DggGZqYebrQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[slystaff]

how about a real patriot?

maybe someone like this:


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DggGZqYebrQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT>The colour (color for you americans) of his skin doesn't make him more patriotic. :nono: </P>

[atomicdOGg34]

The colour (color for you americans) of his skin doesn't make him more patriotic. :nono:

wow your an idiot

did you even watch the video asshole?

i know you didnt and dont even try to lie

[Tyler Durden]

"First of all , we will ask him (Obama) a question ... If da bible is bad for you and you should not follow it , why you filthy liar you say dat you are a person who convert to christianity ?"... "No muslim will attack this man because he is a muslim and because as you see they are defending him"

:lol:

:lol:

[Tyler Durden]

:rolleyes:

He's a Christian, how many times does he have to tell everyone this?

Did you watch the video I posted? He clearly was making fun of the Bible because he does not believe, trust me.....I can spot this :cool:

[atomicdOGg34]

:rolleyes:

He's a Christian, how many times does he have to tell everyone this?

he also said hed be out of iraq in 18 months, but according to his ex-foreign policy aide not only is that not true but he doesnt even have a plan:lol:

[PetreTG]

Since your domestic troubles you've turned into a true cunt.

What domestic troubles ??? :dunno:

[slystaff]

he also said hed be out of iraq in 18 months, but according to his ex-foreign policy aide not only is that not true but he doesnt even have a plan:lol:It's premature for him to have a completed and thorough plan. You know better than that. He's not even Commander in chief as yet. When he assumes that position he'll discuss with his advisors and generals etc and work out the best plan to do it. Why would he have a complete plan right now...and he's not even in that position? :dunno:

[atomicdOGg34]

It's premature for him to have a completed and thorough plan. You know better than that. He's not even Commander in chief as yet. When he assumes that position he'll discuss with his advisors and generals etc and work out the best plan to do it. Why would he have a complete plan right now...and he's not even in that position? :dunno:

then why the fuck is he telling people he'll have the troops out in 16 (i said 18 but after some checking he said 16) months?

hes telling people he has a plan, that hell get the troops out in 16 months, period

so you admit that hes lying then?

[Rabid Kimba]

Man, I've never seen a brotha Brit soooooooo much into a brotha American presidential candidate.

Mmm, I wonder why?

:lol:

[PetreTG]

:lol:
<dl><dt>
</dt></dl>
<center>http://www.rense.com/general81/globeenquirer2.jpg</center>
<dl><dt>
</dt></dl>

[PetreTG]

:lol:

<dl><dt><center>http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/glbecv2.jpg</center> </dt><dt><center> </center> </dt><dt><center> </center> </dt><dt><center>http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/glbeSP2.jpg</center> </dt><dt><center>http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/globec.jpg</center> </dt></dl>

[Tyler Durden]

No wonder he converted, terrorists wouldn't put up with that.

[Tyler Durden]

Rep. King Defends Comments About Obama
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>document.write('<a href="/article/pho?guid=20080310/47d4c050_3ca7_1552720080310-1278283044'+sendPath+'" />');</SCRIPT>http://my.eimg.net/harvest_xml/NEWS/img/20080310/47d4c050_3ca7_1552720080310-1278283044.jpg (http://enews.earthlink.net/article/pho?guid=20080310/47d4c050_3ca7_1552720080310-1278283044&article_path=/article/pol&article_guid=20080310/47d611d0_3421_1334520080311-1416352772)Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington in this 2007 file photo. King defended his prediction that terrorists would celebrate if Democrat Barack Obama were elected president, despite a rebuke from aides to John McCain, the GOP's apparent presidential nominee. Lauren Victoria Burke

By JAMES BELTRAN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
March 11, 2008 1:43 AM EDT
DES MOINES, Iowa - An Iowa Republican congressman on Monday defended his prediction that terrorists would celebrate if Democrat Barack Obama were elected president, despite a rebuke from aides to John McCain, the GOP's apparent presidential nominee.
"(Obama will) certainly be viewed as a savior for them," Rep. Steve King told The Associated Press. "That's why you will see them supporting him, encouraging him."
King said his offices have been bombarded with calls - positive and negative - since he said Friday that al-Qaida "would be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they would declare victory in this war on terror."
<SCRIPT>document.write('<iframe style="float:right;margin-left:5px" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_top;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord='+rand+'?" width="300" height="250" frameborder="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_top;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord='+ rand+'? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_top;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord='+ rand+'?)</iframe>');</SCRIPT>King cited Obama's pledge to pull U.S. troops from Iraq, his father's Muslim roots in Kenya and his middle name, Hussein, which King said has a meaning to terrorists.
Asked about the remarks as he campaigned in Mississippi, Obama said, "I think that Mr. King has it backwards. The fact that the continuation of a presence in Iraq as Senator McCain has suggested is exactly what, I think, will fan the flames of anti-American sentiment and make it more difficult for us to create a long-term and sustainable peace in the world.
"But I have to say that Mr. King and individuals like him thrive on offensive or controversial statements as a way to get in the papers, so I don't take it too seriously. I would hope Senator McCain would want to distance himself from that kind of inflammatory and offensive remarks," Obama said.
<SCRIPT>document.write('<iframe style="float:right;margin-left:5px" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adi/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_bottom;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord='+rand+ '?" width="300" height="250" frameborder="no" border="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no">http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_bottom;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord ='+rand+'? (http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/news.earthlink.dart/news_300x250_bottom;abr=!ie;sz=300x250;ptile=5;ord ='+rand+'?)</iframe>');</SCRIPT>Aides to McCain also disavowed King's comments.
"John McCain rejects the type of politics that degrades our civics ... and obviously that extends to Congressman King's statement," spokesman Brian Rogers told The Associated Press.
Last month, McCain also denounced his introduction in Cincinnati by talk-show host Bill Cunningham, who referred to Obama three times as "Barack Hussein Obama."
Obama supporters have claimed such tactics are being used to imply that he is a Muslim.
The Illinois senator, born in Hawaii to a white Kansas woman and a Kenyan man, is a Christian and has said he has little connection to the Islamic religion, though he acknowledges spending part of his childhood in largely Muslim Indonesia.

[dsimon3387]

dsimon writes:

Ferraro, that rascist cunt took advantage of the fact that she has a cunt to give her license to be a rascist.... No, we are not talking politically correct police prosecuting.... the bitch came right out and unapologetically said that Obama was only where he was, only had the advantage he had because he was a Black man.

Nw credit where credit is due, Obama could have done many things in that situation and many things would have been justified, including talking about the cunt's gender and how it helped her cause, or saying he was insulted, etc. Obama instead said something which should be a soundbite because of how clever it is.

OBAMA: "Well last I checked being an African American Male was not an advantage of being a candidate for president of the united states."

:bears: :bears: :lol: :lol: Riposte, touche' victory. Ferraro now you can shut the fuck up.

[LOK]

dsimon writes:

Ferraro, that rascist cunt took advantage of the fact that she has a cunt to give her license to be a rascist.... No, we are not talking politically correct police prosecuting.... the bitch came right out and unapologetically said that Obama was only where he was, only had the advantage he had because he was a Black man.

Nw credit where credit is due, Obama could have done many things in that situation and many things would have been justified, including talking about the cunt's gender and how it helped her cause, or saying he was insulted, etc. Obama instead said something which should be a soundbite because of how clever it is.

OBAMA: "Well last I checked being an African American Male was not an advantage of being a candidate for president of the united states."

:bears: :bears: :lol: :lol: Riposte, touche' victory. Ferraro now you can shut the fuck up.

:bears: that is good..

:lol: :bears:

[dsimon3387]

:bears: that is good..

:lol: :bears:

dsimn writes:

The guy is clever. Ferrera should be ashamed of herself. Clinton of course did not disown her. :lol:

[Trplsec]

dsimn writes:

The guy is clever. Ferrera should be ashamed of herself. Clinton of course did not disown her. :lol:


Quit picking on Geraldine just because she's white.


Seriously though, there is a bit of extra fervor to Obama's campaign because he's black. The novelty of being the strongest African-American candidate in history has helped his campaign.

For those that are a bit slower, this next line is a joke. If Obama was white, he'd be Mitt Romney.

[dsimon3387]

Quit picking on Geraldine just because she's white.


Seriously though, there is a bit of extra fervor to Obama's campaign because he's black. The novelty of being the strongest African-American candidate in history has helped his campaign.

For those that are a bit slower, this next line is a joke. If Obama was white, he'd be Mitt Romney.

dsimon writes:

Ferraro of all people though? Ferraro was a decent looking piece of ass and that helped her along. Should Obama say as much? When you drink from the same spring do not piss in the water to spite your antagonizer!

Also there are some disadvantages that come with Obama's skin color as well. To unapologetically make a remark like that is just arrogant.

[Trplsec]

dsimon writes:

Ferraro of all people though? Ferraro was a decent looking piece of ass and that helped her along. Should Obama say as much? When you drink from the same spring do not piss in the water to spite your antagonizer!

Also there are some disadvantages that come with Obama's skin color as well. To unapologetically make a remark like that is just arrogant.

Sometimes speaking the truth, especially when it's typically an unspoken truth, will seem arrogant.

I do agree with the point that Ferraro is the LAST person that should make a comment like that. She's likely still bitter about fucking up Mondale's chances in 1984.

[mexican wedding shirt]

dsimon - do you think Obama would be getting 90% of black votes if he was white? :lol:

Come on, the colour of his skin is playing a huge factor.

Right or wrong, good or bad, that's just the way it is.

[Nobleart]

dsimn writes:

The guy is clever. Ferrera should be ashamed of herself. Clinton of course did not disown her. :lol:


Hillary would kick Geraldine Ferraro in the throat if it would get her another superdelagate vote.

Hell, she should probably run on that platform. "Vote for me and I'll kick Geraldine Ferraro in the throat!".

[slystaff]

Hillary has just officially lost any remnants of black vote with this outrage. She should have "rejected and denounced" her immediately.

Hillary is the one who has benefitted?:

Wife of the popular Bill Clinton

Obama's race hasn't helped him at all, in fact he'd already be the presumptive nominee if he were a white man with everythign else he brings..

[Trplsec]

Hillary has just officially lost any remnants of black vote with this outrage. She should have "rejected and denounced" her immediately.

Hillary is the one who has benefitted?:

Wife of the popular Bill Clinton

Obama's race hasn't helped him at all, in fact he'd already be the presumptive nominee if he were a white man with everythign else he brings..


Bull shit..

If Obama was white he would be just another well-spoken, charismatic, white politician. It's truely a novelty, and consequently a benefit, for Obama to have those characteristics while being mostly black.

Personally, I'd bet money that Sly wouldn't have Obama in his FB signature if Barrack was white.

[puerto rock]

Definitely a great counter punch. Very clever. Like Obama or not, the guy does know what to say when asked a question.


Hillary will lose alot of black voters now and it could affect her chances not only to win Pennsylvania, but the nomination.

[slystaff]

Definitely a great counter punch. Very clever. Like Obama or not, the guy does know what to say when asked a question.


Hillary will lose alot of black voters now and it could affect her chances not only to win Pennsylvania, but the nomination.Exactly.

Hillary has to realize that you don't gain black voters when your surrogates pull these nasty stunts.

She was polling better with African Americans vis a vias Obama just a couple months ago and what changed that so dramatically?

Bob Johnson and his nonsense (When Obama was in teh neighborhood doing something....)
Bill Clinton and his stuff about Jesse Jackson also winning South Carolina

But yes, Obama is a great Counter-puncher

Suddenly Obama started getting 90% of teh black vote.

After this latest one, which is by far the worst so far, my prediction is that Obama will get 99% of teh black vote going forward and if Hillary was to win the nomination still...the black vote would go to McCain in the General Election.

[phonetap]

dsimon - do you think Obama would be getting 90% of black votes if he was white? :lol:

Come on, the colour of his skin is playing a huge factor.

Right or wrong, good or bad, that's just the way it is.

some of you are always trying to read shit into things you know little about. you need to study the historical voting pattes of african-americans. john kerry received 90% of the black vote during the last democratic primary election. in FACT, kerry received a higher percentage of the black vote in some states than obama has...obama's advantage is black turnout (as across all racial & ethnic backgrounds) has been higher in this election.

[mexican wedding shirt]

some of you are always trying to read shit into things you know little about. you need to study the historical voting pattes of african-americans. john kerry received 90% of the black vote during the last democratic primary election. in FACT, kerry received a higher percentage of the black vote in some states than obama has...obama's advantage is black turnout (as across all racial & ethnic backgrounds) has been higher in this election.

Are you sure about that? Do you have the figures to back it?

I'll freely admit, I don't really follow American politics.

I've only been following this election because of the possibility of a black president, which is of course new and interesting.

So I read he has 90% of black votes, of course I am going to assume it's because he's black. I certainly wouldn't think he'd have those same votes if he was white.

[PetreTG]

From what I hear Obama gave some spunk to Ole Larry back in '99.

http://www.outfordemocracy.org/images/leads/people/obamarainbow1.gif

[TFK]

Obama's race hasn't helped him at all, in fact he'd already be the presumptive nominee if he were a white man with everythign else he brings..


Says the guy who supports Obama, but admitted he would vote for McCain before Hillary, inspite of Hillary and Obama being pretty much the same candidate on the issues.

TFK

[Octopus]

Personally, I'd bet money that Sly wouldn't have Obama in his FB signature if Barrack was white.

Shit man,doesn't take a genius to figure that one out:lol:

Add Tapper to that list also:bears:

[slystaff]

Says the guy who supports Obama, but admitted he would vote for McCain before Hillary, inspite of Hillary and Obama being pretty much the same candidate on the issues.

TFKHillary is a cunt, plain and simple. I'd much rather see McCain as president than her. Issues/Shmissues....personality and character of the President as well as the ability to reach out to both parties...is more important than the issues that they're "running on".

You should know that as well as I.

[TFK]

Hillary is a cunt, plain and simple. I'd much rather see McCain as president than her. Issues/Shmissues....personality and character of the President as well as the ability to reach out to both parties...is more important than the issues that they're "running on".

You should know that as well as I.

That's fine, just as long as you have no problem with someone who wouldn't vote for Obama because 'Obama is a n*gger, plain and simple'.


TFK

[slystaff]

That's fine, just as long as you have no problem with someone who wouldn't vote for Obama because 'Obama is a n*gger, plain and simple'.


TFKI expect that there are MANY characters who feel that way...only a handful of which who would actually admit it. And yes...I would be offended by that personally...but at the same time if that's the way people feel i can't change that. In the same way I'm sure women would be offended by me for attacking Hillary...but that's how i feel on the matter.

[black06]

:lol: :lol: :laughing:


Hillary would kick Geraldine Ferraro in the throat if it would get her another superdelagate vote.

Hell, she should probably run on that platform. "Vote for me and I'll kick Geraldine Ferraro in the throat!".

[REEDsART]

That's fine, just as long as you have no problem with someone who wouldn't vote for Obama because 'Obama is a n*gger, plain and simple'.


TFK"Someone" like YOU, for Instance???....Not that your Punk Ass has the NUTS to ADMIT it though...


REED:cool:

[slystaff]

"Someone" like YOU, for Instance???....Not that your Punk Ass has the NUTS to ADMIT it though...


REED:cool:word.

[TFK]

"Someone" like YOU, for Instance???....Not that your Punk Ass has the NUTS to ADMIT it though...


REED:cool:

Actually, I've given my reasons for not voting for Obama on this board many times, and none of them have anything to do with race or color.

I'm just pointing out that Slystaff's reason for not liking Hillary is no different or no better then someone not liking Obama because he's black.

TFK

[REEDsART]

dsimon - do you think Obama would be getting 90% of black votes if he was white? :lol:

Come on, the colour of his skin is playing a huge factor.

Right or wrong, good or bad, that's just the way it is.Blacks DON'T Make Up ENOUGH of the American Population to SWAY the Vote Either Way...

"90% of Black Votes" DOESN'T Guarantee Shit...

REED:lol:

[REEDsART]

Actually, I've given my reasons for not voting for Obama on this board many times, and none of them have anything to do with race or color.

I'm just pointing out that Slystaff's reason for not liking Hillary is no different or no better then someone not liking Obama because he's black.

TFK:rolleyes:

U're THE WORST Kind of Racist...The CHICKENSHIT, KKKowardly KKKind (U SVELTELY Snuck the "N" Word into your Post, by the Way:rolleyes: )...But then Again, that's a Surprise to NOBODY on this Site...

Carry On, Girlfriend...


REED:cheer:

[REEDsART]

Bull shit..

If Obama was white he would be just another well-spoken, charismatic, white politician. It's truely a novelty, and consequently a benefit, for Obama to have those characteristics while being mostly black.

Personally, I'd bet money that Sly wouldn't have Obama in his FB signature if Barrack was white.Riiiight, it's Such a "Benefit", he's the 2nd Black Candidate w/a REAL Chance EVER:rolleyes: ...

It's a "Novelty" Cause it's BEEN America's Little "UNWRITTEN Rule" that a Black Man WON'T B President...& If U're Gonna Sit Here & Act like that HASN'T Been the Case, U're RESPECTFULLY Full of Shit, Dog....

Honestly, REED STILL ISN'T Optimistic about Obama WINNING the Presidency...REED STILL DOESN'T Think it'll Happen N his Lifetime...If Obama DOES Win, it'll B Probably THE Most SHOCKING Occurence of REED's lifetime...

REED Wishes the Brother Luck, but he ISN"T Holding his Breath EXPECTING him to Win or even Beat Hillary for that Matter...

REED:cool:

[TFK]

:rolleyes:

U're THE WORST Kind of Racist...The CHICKENSHIT, KKKowardly KKKind (U SVELTELY Snuck the "N" Word into your Post, by the Way:rolleyes: )...But then Again, that's a Surprise to NOBODY on this Site...

Carry On, Girlfriend...


REED:cheer:

Reed, do you have any idea how foolish you come off when you start this shit? You seem obsessed with wanting me to be a racist, and it must tear you up inside that you know I'm not. But yet you keep trying, failing again and again.

Funny how you acuse me of racism, but seem to have no problem with Slystaff, and his reasoning for choosing McCain over Hillary. Tell me Reed, is it ok to not like Hillary because she's a 'cunt', but not ok to dislike Obama because he's a 'n*gger'?

Funny how you acuse me of racism, yet you still can't point to any instance of racism on my part, but you ignore the racist comments made by Slystaff in the Obamination thread, where he justified racism against whites, and claimed to support Farrakhan, one of the biggest racists this world has ever seen.

You want to talk about not having the nuts to admit things, take your buddy Slystaff to task for not admitting that he's so gungho over Obama because he's black, even though it is painfully obvious.

Once again, you want to label me as a racist, and once again, I've taken your ass to school. You think one day you'd learn from your mistakes. But if fighting racism is your thing, you need only to look toward your buddy Slystaff for a good place to start.

TFK

[REEDsART]

some of you are always trying to read shit into things you know little about. you need to study the historical voting pattes of african-americans. john kerry received 90% of the black vote during the last democratic primary election. in FACT, kerry received a higher percentage of the black vote in some states than obama has...obama's advantage is black turnout (as across all racial & ethnic backgrounds) has been higher in this election.REED Didn't Know this Bit of Information, but it's Faaaaaaaaaaar from Surprising...

Like REED Said, 90% of the Black Vote WON'T Mean Shit N the Presidential Election...Sure, it's NICE to Have, but the Latino, White or Female Vote is MUCH More Important...U Can Probably ADD IN the Gay Vote as Well...

Bottom Line, Blacks AIN'T a Large Enough % of this Country to Sway an Election...& How does that Statistic Guage Blacks that DON'T Care Enough to Vote???...Or Blacks who've LOST their Right to Vote due to Criminal Convictions/Jailtime???...

Toooooo Many VARIABLES...


REED:cool:

[slystaff]

Blacks DON'T Make Up ENOUGH of the American Population to SWAY the Vote Either Way...

"90% of Black Votes" DOESN'T Guarantee Shit...

REED:lol:PRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECISELY!

Roland Martin of CNN has been screaming this for the longest time and no one seems to be picking it up.

Obama can't get anywhere on the black vote alone. The White vote is what's important if a candidate wants to be elected...

[atomicdOGg34]

if obama didnt pull the 90% of the black vote he probably wouldnt be winning

if anyone has followed the news theyd know that obama being black has helped him

[slystaff]

Reed, do you have any idea how foolish you come off when you start this shit? You seem obsessed with wanting me to be a racist, and it must tear you up inside that you know I'm not. But yet you keep trying, failing again and again.

Funny how you acuse me of racism, but seem to have no problem with Slystaff, and his reasoning for choosing McCain over Hillary. Tell me Reed, is it ok to not like Hillary because she's a 'cunt', but not ok to dislike Obama because he's a 'n*gger'?

Funny how you acuse me of racism, yet you still can't point to any instance of racism on my part, but you ignore the racist comments made by Slystaff in the Obamination thread, where he justified racism against whites, and claimed to support Farrakhan, one of the biggest racists this world has ever seen.

You want to talk about not having the nuts to admit things, take your buddy Slystaff to task for not admitting that he's so gungho over Obama because he's black, even though it is painfully obvious.

Once again, you want to label me as a racist, and once again, I've taken your ass to school. You think one day you'd learn from your mistakes. But if fighting racism is your thing, you need only to look toward your buddy Slystaff for a good place to start.

TFKI have never ONCE been racist. And calling farrakhan "one of the biggest racists this world has ever seen." is beyond laughable! :lol:

You obviously don't know what true racism is my friend.

[slystaff]

if obama didnt pull the 90% of the black vote he probably wouldnt be winning

if anyone has followed the news theyd know that obama being black has helped himBut if he was WHITE...he would have had a larger share of the WHITE VOTE which has more weight than the black vote since the whites have teh numbers...

[REEDsART]

Reed, do you have any idea how foolish you come off when you start this shit? You seem obsessed with wanting me to be a racist, and it must tear you up inside that you know I'm not. But yet you keep trying, failing again and again.

Funny how you acuse me of racism, but seem to have no problem with Slystaff, and his reasoning for choosing McCain over Hillary. Tell me Reed, is it ok to not like Hillary because she's a 'cunt', but not ok to dislike Obama because he's a 'n*gger'?

Funny how you acuse me of racism, yet you still can't point to any instance of racism on my part, but you ignore the racist comments made by Slystaff in the Obamination thread, where he justified racism against whites, and claimed to support Farrakhan, one of the biggest racists this world has ever seen.

You want to talk about not having the nuts to admit things, take your buddy Slystaff to task for not admitting that he's so gungho over Obama because he's black, even though it is painfully obvious.

Once again, you want to label me as a racist, and once again, I've taken your ass to school. You think one day you'd learn from your mistakes. But if fighting racism is your thing, you need only to look toward your buddy Slystaff for a good place to start.

TFK1 of these YEARS U'll Realize that TELLING Someone "I've Taken your Ass to School" is a PATHETICALLY WEAK Attempt @ Convincing OTHERS that U Have:lol: ...Give it Up, SCRUB...

REED Accuses U Cause your Shit is OBVIOUS...Not 1nce have U Even ALMOST Liked, Spoken Highly of or even REMOTELY APPRECIATED ANY Aspect of Black Culture...N Fact, U Bend Over Backwards to Talk SHIT about Different Aspects of Black Culture...U're like Orthodox Crusader w/a VAGINA...@ Least O.C. has the BALLS to ADMIT his Stance on Shit...YOU???...U Sit Back Playing that COY Bullshit, Throwing the "N" Word Around KNOWING it'll Get a Rise Out of Peeps...Is it Merely a COINCIDENCE that U've have Beef @ 1 Time or Another w/Practically EVERY SINGLE Black Poster on this Site (& OTHER Sites from what REED has Heard)???:dunno:

Why Doesn't REED Get on Sly???...Cause Apparently he's Not MASKING his Take, UNlike YOU...Again, B a Fuckin MAN for 1nce...

& Just So YOU Know, Throwing Sly Into the Mix is JUST LIKE the "I Know U R but what am I(or what is SLY)" CRAP Arguement U Accuse Others Of...

Shit, Ask SLY Why he's the Way he is...N the Meantime, REED is Asking YOU why U're a KKKoward about your Racist Behavior???...

If U Won't or Can't Answer that, just Say So...

REED:dunno:

[REEDsART]

if obama didnt pull the 90% of the black vote he probably wouldnt be winning

if anyone has followed the news theyd know that obama being black has helped himBlacks R Like 15-18% of the Nation,Dog...

& a LARGE % of that CANNOT Vote Due to Criminal Records & Whatnot...

So HOW is it that the "Black Vote" can WIN the Presidency for a Candidate???


REED:dunno:

[Arben]

Reed is right. The black vote is not that significant, and that arguement against him is stupid as well.

If women didn't vote, republicans would win every time.

[mexican wedding shirt]

Blacks DON'T Make Up ENOUGH of the American Population to SWAY the Vote Either Way...

"90% of Black Votes" DOESN'T Guarantee Shit...

REED:lol:

Really? I thought it was quite a large % of the population, compared to England for example.

[TFK]

1 of these YEARS U'll Realize that TELLING Someone "I've Taken your Ass to School" is a PATHETICALLY WEAK Attempt @ Convincing OTHERS that U Have:lol: ...Give it Up, SCRUB...

The truth is the truth. You continually call me a racist, I continually ask you to provide some proof, and you've never been able to deliver. This time is no different. Like it or not, you've been taken to school.


REED Accuses U Cause your Shit is OBVIOUS...Not 1nce have U Even ALMOST Liked, Spoken Highly of or even REMOTELY APPRECIATED ANY Aspect of Black Culture...N Fact, U Bend Over Backwards to Talk SHIT about Different Aspects of Black Culture...U're like Orthodox Crusader w/a VAGINA...@ Least O.C. has the BALLS to ADMIT his Stance on Shit...YOU???..

Never even remotely appreciated any black culture? Why do you say that? Because I don't like rap? If you look in my music collection, you'll see true black artists like Billie Holiday, Elmore James, Otis Redding, Curtis Mayfield, John Lee Hooker, etc, etc.

I think you're mistaking rap and hip hop for all of black culture. Show me some 'black culture' that I've bent over backwards to talk shit about besides rap and hip hop?


.U Sit Back Playing that COY Bullshit, Throwing the "N" Word Around KNOWING it'll Get a Rise Out of Peeps...Is it Merely a COINCIDENCE that U've have Beef @ 1 Time or Another w/Practically EVERY SINGLE Black Poster on this Site (& OTHER Sites from what REED has Heard)???

I used the n word because it was appropriate in the context, and exposed Sly's hypocrisy when it came to calling Hillary a cunt. And besides here and Max, what other sites have I posted at? Again, you're caught making shit up. And my problems at Max are well documented, and have nothing to do with race. It's the same scenario, there are a few ignorant jackasses like yourself that have claimed racism, but when pressed for examples, failed to back up their claims.

And I've had 'beefs' with white posters as well. But we won't let the facts get in the way of your idiotic claims.


Why Doesn't REED Get on Sly???...Cause Apparently he's Not MASKING his Take, UNlike YOU...Again, B a Fuckin MAN for 1nce...


Riiiiiiiggggghhhht!


Shit, Ask SLY Why he's the Way he is...N the Meantime, REED is Asking YOU why U're a KKKoward about your Racist Behavior???...


I pointed out what a racist Sly was in the thread, and he hid instead of responded. And once again, show me some racist behavior on my part, and I'll be happy to answer for it. But once again, you won't be able to.




If U Won't or Can't Answer that, just Say So...

I've answered everything you posted, and in the process, took your ignorant ass to school once again.

We've had this discussion countless times, and not once have you ever come out looking like anything other then the clueless jackass you are. You'll never learn, will you?


TFK

[TFK]

I have never ONCE been racist. And calling farrakhan "one of the biggest racists this world has ever seen." is beyond laughable! :lol:

You obviously don't know what true racism is my friend.


Deny it all you want, but your words are right there.

And you're right, Farrakhan isn't a terrible racist. He's just a nice, happy go lucky, misunderstood gentleman.

TFK

[PetreTG]

Obama's ties to a racist church that honors Farrakhan , his criminal campaign finance manager and his other ties ... see below.

How many ties does he need before you goofballs see how crooked he is .

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fV_h-XwchkY&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fV_h-XwchkY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Nobleart]

if obama didnt pull the 90% of the black vote he probably wouldnt be winning

if anyone has followed the news theyd know that obama being black has helped him


He pulled 90% of the black vote in one state that has a horrible history of race relations. Is anybody fucking surprised black Mississipians would choose the first promising black candidate to come around in perhaps forever.

People vote for people they can relate to. Not because of what it says on page 275 of the NAFTA trade agreement.

I disagree he would be just another white candidate if he wasn't black. He'd be among the elite of the white candidates. He's basically a young Bill Clinton with black skin.

Being black may have helped him in Mississippi, but it certainly didn't help him in many of the other states.

[slystaff]

Deny it all you want, but your words are right there.

And you're right, Farrakhan isn't a terrible racist. He's just a nice, happy go lucky, misunderstood gentleman.

TFKDude you have alot of growing up to do, with due respect.

There's a difference between someone who says that "Whites are devils" in reaction to the well documented mistreatment of blacks in the States (and South Africa, etc.....), and other races (Australian Aborignes, Native Americans, etc etc) over the last few centuries...but doesn't wish them harm and just wants to separate from them (as co-existing caused pure hardship for blacks)......


.....and someone like for example..Hitler (but he's BY NO MEANS an isolated case)...who would have gladly eradicated every non white person off the planet because they weren't part of a master race.

Like I said before..I don't think you really understand what racism is...

[atomicdOGg34]

But if he was WHITE...he would have had a larger share of the WHITE VOTE which has more weight than the black vote since the whites have teh numbers...

wrong

if he was white, i think alot more emphasis would be put on his record, which is slim

if he was white hed be exactly like hillary policy wise except with less experience and shed have the factor of being a woman

if obama was white hed have that going against him plus his lack of experience

[atomicdOGg34]

He pulled 90% of the black vote in one state that has a horrible history of race relations. Is anybody fucking surprised black Mississipians would choose the first promising black candidate to come around in perhaps forever.

People vote for people they can relate to. Not because of what it says on page 275 of the NAFTA trade agreement.

I disagree he would be just another white candidate if he wasn't black. He'd be among the elite of the white candidates. He's basically a young Bill Clinton with black skin.

Being black may have helped him in Mississippi, but it certainly didn't help him in many of the other states.

ill point to SC as probably the turning point in this nomination process

[slystaff]

wrong

if he was white, i think alot more emphasis would be put on his record, which is slim

if he was white hed be exactly like hillary policy wise except with less experience and shed have the factor of being a woman

if obama was white hed have that going against him plus his lack of experienceWhiteness wasn't hurting Bill Clinton...who had a relatively THIN record when compared with George Bush senior. I'm sure blacks supported him in DROVES.....plus whites

[Nobleart]

wrong

if he was white, i think alot more emphasis would be put on his record, which is slim

if he was white hed be exactly like hillary policy wise except with less experience and shed have the factor of being a woman

if obama was white hed have that going against him plus his lack of experience


What's with this "policy" shit? Does anybody think Bill Clinton, George Bush or Ronald Reagan won their elections on "policy"? :dunno:

[atomicdOGg34]

Whiteness wasn't hurting Bill Clinton...who had a relatively THIN record when compared with George Bush senior. I'm sure blacks supported him in DROVES.....plus whites

bill wasnt running against a woman either

you seemed to miss that point

[slystaff]

What's with this "policy" shit? Does anybody think Bill Clinton, George Bush or Ronald Reagan won their elections on "policy"? :dunno:EXACTLY!

[atomicdOGg34]

What's with this "policy" shit? Does anybody think Bill Clinton, George Bush or Ronald Reagan won their elections on "policy"? :dunno:

im sure i could point out policy positions they held that helped them win their elections

most recently, bush in 2000 ran on a humble foreign policy, which was part of the reason he got elected

policy is what matters ultimately

who cares if you can bring people together and are charismatic, if your policies are shit to start with, bringing people together and getting them passed isnt going to make them any less shit

[slystaff]

bill wasnt running against a woman either

you seemed to miss that pointNo my friend you (conveniently) missed MY point..which is that Bill Clinton was a likable, intelligent, charismatic (like Obama) but WHITE MALE....and as such he sailed through teh primaries.

A woman, especially as dislikable as Hilary is....wouldn't even have been close to him. You know it and I know it.

[slystaff]

im sure i could point out policy positions they held that helped them win their elections

most recently, bush in 2000 ran on a humble foreign policy, which was part of the reason he got elected

policy is what matters ultimately

who cares if you can bring people together and are charismatic, if your policies are shit to start with, bringing people together and getting them passed isnt going to make them any less shit

Not true. People elect on personality and potential more than policy.

[atomicdOGg34]

No my friend you (conveniently) missed MY point..which is that Bill Clinton was a likable, intelligent, charismatic (like Obama) but WHITE MALE....and as such he sailed through teh primaries.

A woman, especially as dislikable as Hilary is....wouldn't even have been close to him. You know it and I know it.

dude, the fact that he wasnt running against a woman (especially as one as viable as his wife) is a variable you have to take into account

clinton is very popular in democratic cirlces, she regularly wins the primaries in democratic voters, obama wins with independents and crossovers, these are facts

your making the most vague comparison there is, and its weak

[TFK]

Dude you have alot of growing up to do, with due respect.

There's a difference between someone who says that "Whites are devils" in reaction to the well documented mistreatment of blacks in the States (and South Africa, etc.....), and other races (Australian Aborignes, Native Americans, etc etc) over the last few centuries...but doesn't wish them harm and just wants to separate from them (as co-existing caused pure hardship for blacks)......


.....and someone like for example..Hitler (but he's BY NO MEANS an isolated case)...who would have gladly eradicated every non white person off the planet because they weren't part of a master race.

Like I said before..I don't think you really understand what racism is...


I don't have to list Farrakhan's history of racism, as it's pretty well known, but if you want to defend Farrakhan, I think it speaks volumes about who you are. If you want to justify racism against whites, and defend a man who claims whites are 'potential humans' who 'haven't evolved yet', feel free, but then don't run for claims of racism thrown your way.

And yet I get called a racist.

But back on subject. Do you...or Reed for that matter...think that someone not voting for Hillary because she's a 'cunt' is any different or better then someone not voting for Obama because he's a black?

TFK

[atomicdOGg34]

Not true. People elect on personality and potential more than policy.

what does potential even mean?

thats so damn vague, potential.... for what?

the only way you can see what his potential is, is to look at his policies and his voting record

potential, pfft

[slystaff]

dude, the fact that he wasnt running against a woman (especially as one as viable as his wife) is a variable you have to take into account

clinton is very popular in democratic cirlces, she regularly wins the primaries in democratic voters, obama wins with independents and crossovers, these are facts

your making the most vague comparison there is, and its weakNonsense.

I'm responding to your point (trying to change it now)...which was that a white male with charisma but a THIN record wouldn't have made it this far.

Well buddy...explain Bill Clinton....and Southern White male with Zero foreign policy experience and a very thin record of anything (relative to Bush in any event)...

Don't try to dodge it...and don't suddenly try to pretend that Hillary is your point. :nono:

[Nobleart]

im sure i could point out policy positions they held that helped them win their elections

most recently, bush in 2000 ran on a humble foreign policy, which was part of the reason he got elected

policy is what matters ultimately

who cares if you can bring people together and are charismatic, if your policies are shit to start with, bringing people together and getting them passed isnt going to make them any less shit


Bullshit!! Bush got elected because the common man felt like he could have a beer with the guy and get along with him. Clinton was a charismatic charmer who made everybody feel comfortable around him and Reagan drew on his acting career to deliver the great speeches that were put in front of him to read.

You are a big Ron Paul supporter right? How far has his strong "policy" stances gotten him? :dunno:

[TFK]

im sure i could point out policy positions they held that helped them win their elections

most recently, bush in 2000 ran on a humble foreign policy, which was part of the reason he got elected

policy is what matters ultimately

who cares if you can bring people together and are charismatic, if your policies are shit to start with, bringing people together and getting them passed isnt going to make them any less shit


George Foreman is charasmatic and likable, I wonder if he'd make a good president. Same with The Rock. Pat Sajak seems like a good natured guy, maybe he'd be a good president too.

TFK

[slystaff]

I don't have to list Farrakhan's history of racism, as it's pretty well known, but if you want to defend Farrakhan, I think it speaks volumes about who you are. If you want to justify racism against whites, and defend a man who claims whites are 'potential humans' who 'haven't evolved yet', feel free, but then don't run for claims of racism thrown your way.

And yet I get called a racist.

But back on subject. Do you...or Reed for that matter...think that someone not voting for Hillary because she's a 'cunt' is any different or better then someone not voting for Obama because he's a black?

TFKHow does "black" or "N*gger" equate with "cunt"? :dunno:

Perhaps in US speak..."cunt" is a term only used of a woman, because she's a woman. If that's the case we have a misunderstanding.

in Britain we call anyone who is "not a nice person" a cunt.

[atomicdOGg34]

Nonsense.

I'm responding to your point (trying to change it now)...which was that a white male with charisma but a THIN record wouldn't have made it this far.

Well buddy...explain Bill Clinton....and Southern White male with Zero foreign policy experience and a very thin record of anything (relative to Bush in any event)...

Don't try to dodge it...and don't suddenly try to pretend that Hillary is your point. :nono:

so bill would have done equally as well against a woman with hillarys experience instead of bush?

[TFK]

How does "black" or "N*gger" equate with "cunt"? :dunno:

Perhaps in US speak..."cunt" is a term only used of a woman, because she's a woman. If that's the case we have a misunderstanding.

in Britain we call anyone who is "not a nice person" a cunt.


If that be the case, you'd rather see someone who's policies you don't agree with (McCain) be elected then someone who's policies you do agree with, but who isn't 'nice' (Hillary)?

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

TFK

[atomicdOGg34]

If that be the case, you'd rather see someone who's policies you don't agree with (McCain) be elected then someone who's policies you do agree with, but who isn't 'nice' (Hillary)?

That doesn't make a lick of sense.

TFK

:lol:

[Nobleart]

George Foreman is charasmatic and likable, I wonder if he'd make a good president. Same with The Rock. Pat Sajak seems like a good natured guy, maybe he'd be a good president too.

TFK

What does that have to do with anything. I thought the spirit of the thread was "Why is Obama leading in the democratic primaries so far?".

What does being a "Good" president have to do with anything?

I don't know. George Foreman is black. I guess he has the advantage over all the other candidates right there. :dunno:

[TFK]

What does that have to do with anything. I thought the spirit of the thread was "Why is Obama leading in the democratic primaries so far?".

What does being a "Good" president have to do with anything?

I don't know. George Foreman is black. I guess he has the advantage over all the other candidates right there. :dunno:


Sly seems to think that being charasmatic and likable are more important then policy when it comes to choosing a president. If that be the case, then why not someone like Foreman, who is much more likable then Obama. Who cares what his political experience or policies are, right? It's being likable that counts.

TFK

[atomicdOGg34]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Suxll18ygi8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Suxll18ygi8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Nobleart]

Sly seems to think that being charasmatic and likable are more important then policy when it comes to choosing a president. If that be the case, then why not someone like Foreman, who is much more likable then Obama. Who cares what his political experience or policies are, right? It's being likable that counts.

TFK


Sly can't even vote. I know he's supporting Obama but the thread isn't about who "you" would vote for, but whether Obama is beating Hillary just because he's black.

He's more charismatic then her and that is very important for the figurehead of the country IMO.........ESPECIALLY if their policies are the same.

[slystaff]

Sly can't even vote. I know he's supporting Obama but the thread isn't about who "you" would vote for, but whether Obama is beating Hillary just because he's black.

He's more charismatic then her and that is very important for the figurehead of the country IMO.........ESPECIALLY if their policies are the same.Ah......wisdom. Finally someone who gets it.

[atomicdOGg34]

Sly can't even vote. I know he's supporting Obama but the thread isn't about who "you" would vote for, but whether Obama is beating Hillary just because he's black.

He's more charismatic then her and that is very important for the figurehead of the country IMO.........ESPECIALLY if their policies are the same.

why would sly vote for mccain over hillary then?

[slystaff]

why would sly vote for mccain over hillary then?President of USA is so much more than a policy maker...

Who would you rather, objectively speaking, represent the most powerful nation on Earth: Hillary or McCain?

An emotional angry looking woman with a chip on her shoulder, or a likable, pleasant war hero?

[Nobleart]

why would sly vote for mccain over hillary then?


Because she's a cunt? :dunno:

[dsimon3387]

dsimon - do you think Obama would be getting 90% of black votes if he was white? :lol:

Come on, the colour of his skin is playing a huge factor.

Right or wrong, good or bad, that's just the way it is.

dsimon writes:

yeah but it is as much a disadvantage as an advantage.

[mexican wedding shirt]

dsimon writes:

yeah but it is as much a disadvantage as an advantage.

That's why I said, right or wrong, good or bad.

All I'm saying is it's not necessarily racist to suggest that the colour of his skin is playing a role in the campaign, either in a positive or negative light.

It would be absurd to suggest otherwise really. I mean he's the only serious black candidate, pretty much ever right?

Once America has a black president or two, things might be different, and skin colour won't come into it as much. But right now it does, obviously.

[TFK]

President of USA is so much more than a policy maker...

Who would you rather, objectively speaking, represent the most powerful nation on Earth: Hillary or McCain?

An emotional angry looking woman with a chip on her shoulder, or a likable, pleasant war hero?

If all other things were equal, and their policies were the same, you'd have a point. But McCain and Hillary are running on different platforms. Anyone with common sense would want the person that represents their beliefs in that situation, regardless of charisma or likability.

Like it or not, Sly is exactly what Petre says the typical Obama supporter is. He's so caught up in the hype of his 'charisma' and the rest of the buzzwords, that he doesn't care...or doesn't know...what Obama actually represents.

TFK

[LOK]

That's why I said, right or wrong, good or bad.

All I'm saying is it's not necessarily racist to suggest that the colour of his skin is playing a role in the campaign, either in a positive or negative light.

It would be absurd to suggest otherwise really. I mean he's the only serious black candidate, pretty much ever right?

Once America has a black president or two, things might be different, and skin colour won't come into it as much. But right now it does, obviously.

do you think he's a stuffed shirt? or do you think he stuffs his pants? i betyou dream of him putting his black snake in your dry dirty ass cave and makeing you bleed out of your ass

[slystaff]

If all other things were equal, and their policies were the same, you'd have a point. But McCain and Hillary are running on different platforms. Anyone with common sense would want the person that represents their beliefs in that situation, regardless of charisma or likability.

Like it or not, Sly is exactly what Petre says the typical Obama supporter is. He's so caught up in the hype of his 'charisma' and the rest of the buzzwords, that he doesn't care...or doesn't know...what Obama actually represents.

TFKOk..answer me honestly.

Who would you rather see as President:

Alan Keyes...with Republican policies that you agree with 100%

or

John Edwards with the Liberal Democrat policies that he was running on.


Be honest...honest honest honest honest.....:cool:

[TFK]

Ok..answer me honestly.

Who would you rather see as President:

Alan Keyes...with Republican policies that you agree with 100%

or

John Edwards with the Liberal Democrat policies that he was running on.


Be honest...honest honest honest honest.....:cool:


Why would you think I agree with Alan Keyes or Repubican policies?

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I agree with some things Republicans agree with, disagree with others. I agree with some things Democrats agree with, disagree with others.

I form my own opinions, I don't allow a political party to do it for me.

Plus, that's not a fair comparison, because Keyes is a nutjob.

TFK

[slystaff]

Why would you think I agree with Alan Keyes or Repubican policies?

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I agree with some things Republicans agree with, disagree with others. I agree with some things Democrats agree with, disagree with others.

I form my own opinions, I don't allow a political party to do it for me.

Plus, that's not a fair comparison, because Keyes is a nutjob.

TFKAh...I knew you'd give a "policians answer" instead of directly answering it. In doing so you have proven my point already.

nevertheless...I'll CONTINUE WITH THIS until you answer it.

Forget Republican or Democrat.

Let's just say that Alan Keyes was running on policies that YOU agreed with 100%...vs the Liberal Democrat Policies of a John Edwards (whose policies are very similar to Obama...of whom you say you couldn't support because of those policies).....

One of those two were going to be president in this scenario and in the privacy of teh voting booth, you had to choose one.

Who would it be?

Oh and Alan Keyes is not insane (a "nut job" as you put it)...or he wouldn't have been in position to even run for office....

[slystaff]

Oh...and the same question to Atomicdogg! :popcorn:

[TFK]

Ah...I knew you'd give a "policians answer" instead of directly answering it. In doing so you have proven my point already.

nevertheless...I'll CONTINUE WITH THIS until you answer it.

Forget Republican or Democrat.

Let's just say that Alan Keyes was running on policies that YOU agreed with 100%...vs the Liberal Democrat Policies of a John Edwards (whose policies are very similar to Obama...of whom you say you couldn't support because of those policies).....

One of those two were going to be president in this scenario and in the privacy of teh voting booth, you had to choose one.

Who would it be?

Oh and Alan Keyes is not insane (a "nut job" as you put it)...or he wouldn't have been in position to even run for office....

I would vote for Keyes, if he stood for what I believe in. I would vote for Edwards if he stood for what I believe in. But hypotheticals aside, I wouldn't vote for either of them.

TFK

[slystaff]

I would vote for Keyes, if he stood for what I believe in. I would vote for Edwards if he stood for what I believe in. But hypotheticals aside, I wouldn't vote for either of them.

TFK

Last sentence is irrelevant.

I don't believe FOR ONE SECOND that you would vote for Keyes (who you just called a nutjob) over Edwards, even if Keyes stood for what you believe in. You're not fooling me or anyone else around here....and you're not fooling yourself.

Of Course you had to say that to remain consistent..and I can't prove that you are now lying.

However...I'm sure that this has at least made you consider that me choosing McCain over Hillary, regardless of policies...is not as ridiculous as you tried to make it seem.

Dude you have to like and/or respect the person that you're voting for to become President...it's not just about the policies....because in the end of the day Republican or Democrat, Black or White....America will do what America will do.

The two parties are two sides of the same coin.

[TFK]

Last sentence is irrelevant.

I don't believe FOR ONE SECOND that you would vote for Keyes (who you just called a nutjob) over Edwards, even if Keyes stood for what you believe in. You're not fooling me or anyone else around here....and you're not fooling yourself.

Of Course you had to say that to remain consistent..and I can't prove that you are now lying.

However...I'm sure that this has at least made you consider that me choosing McCain over Hillary, regardless of policies...is not as ridiculous as you tried to make it seem.

Dude you have to like and/or respect the person that you're voting for to become President...it's not just about the policies....because in the end of the day Republican or Democrat, Black or White....America will do what America will do.

The two parties are two sides of the same coin.

Sly, your question is pointless because it deals in hypotheticals. If Keyes stood for what I believed in, I obviously wouldn't think he was a nutjob.

Whatever point you're trying to make, you're failing miserably. And your hypothetical scenario's do nothing to make your stance that you'd support McCain, who's policies you don't agree with, over Hillary, who's policies you do, look any better.

TFK

[slystaff]

Sly, your question is pointless because it deals in hypotheticals. If Keyes stood for what I believed in, I obviously wouldn't think he was a nutjob.

Whatever point you're trying to make, you're failing miserably. And your hypothetical scenario's do nothing to make your stance that you'd support McCain, who's policies you don't agree with, over Hillary, who's policies you do, look any better.

TFKDude....I'm not aligned to Democrats anymore than Republicans. My views on policy lie inbetween the philosophies of both parties and neither of the three candidates share my views on everything...all with pieces.

As such...as you said before...all things are equal on that front...and so it comes down to "the intangibles" policially speaking...if you will.

So therefore...it is YOU my friend that do not have a point..or else agree with my point from what you've already said.

[TFK]

Dude....I'm not aligned to Democrats anymore than Republicans. My views on policy lie inbetween the philosophies of both parties and neither of the three candidates share my views on everything...all with pieces.

As such...as you said before...all things are equal on that front...and so it comes down to "the intangibles" policially speaking...if you will.

So therefore...it is YOU my friend that do not have a point..or else agree with my point from what you've already said.

But the differences in philosphy between Clinton and Obama are minimal, whereas the differences between in McCain and Obama are numerous.

Your stance that you support Obama, but would rather see McCain over Hillary is asinine. And if you can't see that, or admit that, then that speaks volumes about who you are.

TFK

[slystaff]

But the differences in philosphy between Clinton and Obama are minimal, whereas the differences between in McCain and Obama are numerous.

Your stance that you support Obama, but would rather see McCain over Hillary is asinine. And if you can't see that, or admit that, then that speaks volumes about who you are.

TFKYou're not that stupid, and so I have to assume that you're deliberately trying to avoid what I said.

I said thyat I'm not aligned to the policies of any of them 100%. I'm AS CLOSE to what McCain stands for as I am to what either Hillary or Obama stand for.

So ith that in mind I choose who I'd rather see as president and in that order it goes:

Obama, McCain, Clinton.

[PetreTG]

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Suxll18ygi8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>

JebusHCripes ... I have to believe the USA isn't full of enough idiots to elect this con man.

:doh:

[phonetap]

Bullshit!! Bush got elected because the common man felt like he could have a beer with the guy and get along with him. Clinton was a charismatic charmer who made everybody feel comfortable around him and Reagan drew on his acting career to deliver the great speeches that were put in front of him to read.

You are a big Ron Paul supporter right? How far has his strong "policy" stances gotten him? :dunno:

ignore adoggs bullshit...the guy is around 25 years old...he has no fucking clue what went on during the clinton, reagan and bush election years. all he's doing is googling conservative propoganda then coming here and feigning first hand experience and knowledge. anyone who was old enough to remember those campaigns knows charm & charisma were a HUGE factors in the elections of reagan, bush and clinton.

[mexican wedding shirt]

Are you sure about that? Do you have the figures to back it?

I'll freely admit, I don't really follow American politics.

I've only been following this election because of the possibility of a black president, which is of course new and interesting.

So I read he has 90% of black votes, of course I am going to assume it's because he's black. I certainly wouldn't think he'd have those same votes if he was white.

For phonetap.

[godking]

But the differences in philosphy between Clinton and Obama are minimal, whereas the differences between in McCain and Obama are numerous.

Your stance that you support Obama, but would rather see McCain over Hillary is asinine. And if you can't see that, or admit that, then that speaks volumes about who you are.

TFKIf you dont think Charisma and public speaking ability are very useful assets and just ''policy'' is enough then you are politically ignorant.

Since the Dawn od democracy the ability to make people believe in you and like you have been priceless assets.

[TFK]

If you dont think Charisma and public speaking ability are very useful assets and just ''policy'' is enough then you are politically ignorant.

Since the Dawn od democracy the ability to make people believe in you and like you have been priceless assets.

Of course charisma and public speaking ability are great assets, but I don't care how good you make a pile of shit sound, it's still a pile of shit. If you're preaching something I don't agree with, it doesn't matter how charismatic or friendly you are.

This is the problem with this country and it's voters. Too many people will choose a candidate based on personality, and not care, or even know about what they actually stand for.

TFK

[PetreTG]

If you dont think Charisma and public speaking ability are very useful assets and just ''policy'' is enough then you are politically ignorant.

Since the Dawn od democracy the ability to make people believe in you and like you have been priceless assets.

Style is fine , so long as there's substance as well. Without substance , you're just a con man.

[godking]

Of course charisma and public speaking ability are great assets, but I don't care how good you make a pile of shit sound, it's still a pile of shit. If you're preaching something I don't agree with, it doesn't matter how charismatic or friendly you are.

This is the problem with this country and it's voters. Too many people will choose a candidate based on personality, and not care, or even know about what they actually stand for.

TFKNo matter how good your policies are if you dont have the leadership ability and charisma to sway people to your views you will have great difficulty in getting elected.


Personality and leadership ability are very big assets for a politician.

[PetreTG]

Church of a President of the United States of America ? I don't think so .... :cool:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zWvxTUy47Fk&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zWvxTUy47Fk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

You go Reverend! Praise Allaaahhhh Jesus!
http://johnstodderinexile.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/barack-obama.jpg

[I and I]

making white people afraid of angry black people.

RACIST.

[PetreTG]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hAYe7MT5BxM&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hAYe7MT5BxM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>


You go Reverend! Praise Allaaahhhh Jesus!
http://johnstodderinexile.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/barack-obama.jpg

[PetreTG]

Church of a President of the United States of America ? I don't think so .... :cool:

[PetreTG]

Church of a President of the United States of America ? I don't think so .... :cool:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/8665/obamanationbl3.jpg

[I and I]

white people be vewy vewy afwaid of angry black people.

The boogie man is coming.

[slystaff]

Church of a President of the United States of America ? I don't think so .... :cool:


<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zWvxTUy47Fk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT></P>
You go Reverend! Praise Allaaahhhh Jesus!
http://johnstodderinexile.files.wordpress.com/2006/06/barack-obama.jpg


Senator Obama said "Reverend Wright is like an Old Uncle who sometimes says things I don't agree with".

That's the bottomline, end of matter.

[I and I]

When racists want to make white people afraid of obama at first they say that he is a muslim, now they say he goes to a church where they use the "be afraid of angrly black people" slant.

Racists :shit:

[Nobleart]

I agree with I and I. I may have to rethink my position on this matter. :lol:

[slystaff]

Church of a President of the United States of America ? I don't think so .... :cool:I'd love to investigate all of the groups, clubs, churches that Ron Paul was a member of at some point or another and scrutinize them. :cool:

[Nobleart]

Hey Petre, is Obama a member of the Skull & Bones club to? Is he Illuminatti?

[phonetap]

For phonetap.

it appears phonetap was off by a couple percentage points in regards to kerry, he only got 88 percent of the black vote in 2004. al gore received 90 percent back in 2000. the information is there just google it. trying to pinhole african-americans as simply voting black is ridiculous. if the african-american vote was that racially mindless, then al sharpton would have won comparibale percentages of the black vote back in 2004 as barack obama is doing now.


<!-- Inline toolbox --><!-- /Inline toolbox --><!-- Entry Footer & Comments -->

[phonetap]

I'd love to investigate all of the groups, clubs, churches that Ron Paul was a member of at some point or another and scrutinize them. :cool:

pastre won't name his master ron pauls church, so you know he has something to hide. :laughing:

[monkeystyle]

What's up with the sig you have Petre? Who's that white dude? :lol:

[slystaff]

it appears phonetap was off by a couple percentage points in regards to kerry, he only got 88 percent of the black vote in 2004. al gore received 90 percent back in 2000. the information is there just google it. trying to pinhole african-americans as simply voting black is ridiculous. if the african-american vote was that racially mindless, then al sharpton would have won comparibale percentages of the black vote back in 2004 as barack obama is doing now.


<!-- Inline toolbox --><!-- /Inline toolbox --><!-- Entry Footer & Comments -->word.

[TFK]

No matter how good your policies are if you dont have the leadership ability and charisma to sway people to your views you will have great difficulty in getting elected.


Personality and leadership ability are very big assets for a politician.

That's all good and all, but I don't want to see someone get elected who will claim to get us out of Iraq, but won't, who will introduce healthcare that we can't afford, who will raise taxes, who sponsers the Global Poverty Act, who makes claims about Nafta, then tells Canada to ignore them because he's just posturing for the election, is associated with a racist, Farrakhan supporting church as well as a terrorist group, etc, etc.....no matter how charasmatic or personable he is.

All the charisma in the world won't make up for the damage he will bring to this country.

TFK

[atomicdOGg34]

That's all good and all, but I don't want to see someone get elected who will claim to get us out of Iraq, but won't, who will introduce healthcare that we can't afford, who will raise taxes, who sponsers the Global Poverty Act, who makes claims about Nafta, then tells Canada to ignore them because he's just posturing for the election, is associated with a racist, Farrakhan supporting church as well as a terrorist group, etc, etc.....no matter how charasmatic or personable he is.

All the charisma in the world won't make up for the damage he will bring to this country.

TFK

sums it up about as best you can

none of these claims can be even debated imo

[atomicdOGg34]

and didnt obama vote for a national id card and the patriot act?

[atomicdOGg34]

yet if mccain went to a church that said blacks were the scourge of the earth they be off the wall going crazy :lol:

i think when it comes to racism things have to pass the hypocrisy test

this fails that test miserably :lol:

[I and I]

yet if mccain went to a church that said blacks were the scourge of the earth they be off the wall going crazy :lol:

i think when it comes to racism things have to pass the hypocrisy test

this fails that test miserably :lol:

So he isn't a muslim now?

Voting or not voting for someone because of what a pastor says=FUCKIN STUPID

as stupid as rightwingers voting for someone just because of what church they go to.