The Daily Obamanation .... ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

And it's still funny when it comes from a Ron Paul supporter.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

 

The Anti-Christ

Ok. Don't jump on me because i am saying this. But I have a friend of mine, who says Obama is the Anti-Christ. The Beast of Revelation. If he is the sombitich that he says that he is, then why in the Hell would I want to vote for the sombitch?

He makes sense, Obama is the only candidate that can possbly cause a peace treaty between the Muslims and the Israelis, simply because he is a Muslim who sees the sensibility of a Peace treaty between the Jews and the Muslims.

Because of this, he might be assassinated, but if he is assassinated, and rises from what should be a certain death, he will be accepted as a prophet. Not only by the Israelis, but by the muslims, and that is what worriers me.

Now I know that the majority of you will think ol' Hairy is effected, and affected by tequila, but I am telling you now I think Obama is the Anti-Christ. If he is elected, you can be sure that 7 years of terribble recompensation is going to be visited on the earth.

Course I could be wrong, and, all of this is nothing more than a terrible teqila nightmare.

WhAT THINKS THE MASSES? :: ::

 

I think almost every president and/or world leader has been labeled as the possible "antichrist" since the modern new testament frenzy started back in the 1950's or so. I think you're just a lil' bit carried away.

 

I guess this is the "wait" part to answer your post.

<OBJECT height=355 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jk6ILZAaAMI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT></P>

 

The reason they say it will be a European, is because their will be a 12 nation power with Rome as the headquarters. I seriously doubt any US leader would be given that type of power over Europe.

 

Didn't that happened when Rome was all over the old world? :notallthere:

 

What if he wins the election by one state (similar to Florida or Ohio) and his voting advantage in that one state is 666? :eeeek:

 

Anyway..the beast of Revelation (out of the Earth) isn't one man....that's a myth...it's an organization/nation/kingdom born immediately after the first Beast (out of the sea) lost one of it's heads (dominion).

This Beast is on the scene right now, powered by the first beast (Roman Catholic Church)...

"Who is like onto the Beast? Who can make war with the beast?"

Which country is the most powerful, the most unique...the one which professes the most Christianity, the one which is actually worshipped by its citizens?


The one whose Capital City has an infrasture that is in the exact shape of a Pentagram (symbol of a goat's head/satan) when viewed from the sky?


He that has an ear, let him hear.......

 

So you'll be voting for McCain then Hairy?

 

You know a few weeks ago..when it seem that he might just win..i started thinking the same thing.....this mofo is the anti-christ...the bible is bullshit IMO...but sometimes fishy about obama...opcorn::: comes out of nowhere, hasn't done shit, talks alot but doesn't say shit..and the people follow him and praise him as some glim of hope and chance for the best...

 

Obama gives as much subtance as to where he stands as any of his present rivals. You're just blindly following the "obama is all tallk and inspiration" bandwagon.

Haven't you seen his interviews, read his website, watched any debates?:doh:

 

okay....but if he wins..OBAMA wins, he will be the LEADER of that country(USA), live/lead the world from that city(D.C)/government over all those christians

 

dsimon writes:

Hairy if it happens I will post giving you much deserved credit for calling that one. Problem is that the Anti-Christ these days is sort of like Dr Evil coming to the future and hijacking the world in a request for 500,000 dollars :eeeek:. He is tame by comparison. here is how I see it.... The Anti-Christ did rise from a sea of fire, and behold he did see the Bush man and Hillary women, he roared, smiled and meekly went asunder his last words being "I thought I was an evil sonufabitch but you know what? compared to these two... I am the guy who pissed in the lemonade and thought it was funny." ::

 

It's going to happen again

 

If you don't want him as president and he wins, move back to shithole Puerto Rico. Just pay me my money first, Puto! :warning:

Wait, Puerto Rico is still a US province (aka still the USA's bitch) so that won't do you any good. :doh:

 

COULD BE WRONG???

A month & a half ago you told everyone here that Obama didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. You said he wouldn't even win the dem nomination and when the southern primaries were held he'd get wiped out.
:doh:

COULD BE WRONG??? :notallthere:

 

:bears:

Obama's Hollow "Judgment" and Empty Record

Posted March 2, 2008 | 02:59 PM (EST)

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

What should we make of Obama's other judgments in foreign affairs? Take Afghanistan, for example. It has been evident for some time that our efforts there are going badly and that cooperation and support from our NATO allies would be helpful. As chairman of the subcommittee on Senate Foreign Relations responsible for NATO and Europe, Obama could have used his lofty position actually to engage the issue and pressure the administration to take some action to improve our chance of success in that conflict against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Of course, that would have involved holding hearings, questioning administration witnesses, and taking a position and offering alternatives. That is what we expect that from senators in a democracy. It is called oversight.

But, instead, Obama, by his own admission, offers the excuse that he has been too busy running for president to do anything substantive, such as direct his staff to organize a single hearing. "Well, first of all," Obama was forced to confess in the Democratic debate in Ohio on February 26, "I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven't had oversight hearings on Afghanistan." To date, his subcommittee has held no policy hearings at all -- none. At the same time that Obama claimed he was too busy campaigning to do anything substantive, racking up one of the worst attendance records in the Senate, Senator Clinton chaired extensive hearings of the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health and attended many others as a member of the Armed Service Committee.

As a consequence of Obama's dereliction of duty on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a feckless administration has had absolutely no oversight as it careens from disaster to disaster in Afghanistan, including the central governments loss of control over 70 percent of the country and yet another bumper crop of opium to fuel the efforts of the Taliban and their terrorist allies. Of course, if you don't hold hearings, conduct oversight, make recommendations or sponsor legislation, then you have no record to explain or defend and you are free to take whatever position is convenient when attacking those who actually did address issues. Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, Obama holds forth on Afghanistan, chiding the administration and our allies as though he's a profile in courage and not someone who has abandoned his post in establishing accountability.

On Iran and the question of designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, the junior senator from Illinois was not quite so clever at avoiding taking a position. He first co-sponsored the "Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," which contained explicit language identifying the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. He subsequently claimed to oppose the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate resolution proposing the same thing. Obama's accountability problem here is that he didn't show up for the vote on that resolution -- a vote that would have put him on record. Then he declined to sign on to a letter put forward by Senator Clinton making explicit that the resolution could not be used as authority to take military action. All we have is Obama's rhetoric juxtaposed with his co-sponsorship of a piece of legislation that proposed what he says he opposed.

Obama's gyrations on Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are not the actions of one imbued with superior intuitive judgment, but rather the machinations of a political opportunist looking to avoid having his fingerprints on any issue that might be controversial, and require real judgment, while preserving his freedom to bludgeon his adversary for actually taking positions as elected office demands. It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable.

 

Glad I could make you laugh ... that was the purpose of this thread .

TRUTH IN COMEDY... You find more truth there then just about any Presidential Candidate Debate.

:clap:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntSalB09uzM

 

How sad that , THAT is a support Obama vid. Just like him and his campaign , no substance whatsoever.

:clap:

 

He has as much substance, if not more, than Ron Paul...hence why he has 10 times the endorsements that Ron Paul has, hence why he has 50 times the amount of individual votes.

Don't be mad because he has 100 times the charisma and eloquence.

If Obama had no substance...even if he were to fool some of teh electorate...he certainly wouldn't be fooling any super delegates or any other senior politicians and characters. Why are YOU smarter than everyone else?

A person can fool some people sometime but he can't......

 

Seriously Sly ... you must be joking here.

The substance given up for Obama as a president , doesn't even register 1% to that of Paul.

And lest we forget your own arguement ... Bush got the nod 2x by the bozo's that now suit your argument. :doh:

 

There's a "little" secret here ...

There's a little secret here .... but first , just read the story, then see if you can guess what it is.


===========================================
Features > November 8, 2002

Breaking the Bank

By David Moberg


Hopefully, they were on their way in to close their accounts.


After federal regulators closed the $2.3 billion Superior Bank in July 2001, investigations revealed that the suburban Chicago thrift was tainted with the hallmarks of a mini-Enron scandal. New legal developments are adding additional twists, including racketeering charges. And yet the bank’s owners, members if one of America’s wealthiest families, ultimately could end up profiting from the bank’s collapse, while many of Superior’s borrowers and depositors suffer financial losses.

The Superior story has a familiar ring. Using a variety of shell companies and complex financial gimmicks, Superior’s managers and owners exaggerated the profits and financial soundness of the bank. While the company actually lost money throughout most of the ’90s, publicly it appeared to be growing remarkably fast and making unusually large profits. Under that cover, the floundering enterprise paid its owners huge dividends and provided them favorable loans and other financial deals deemed illegal by federal investigators.

Superior’s outside auditor, which doubled as a financial consultant, engaged in dubious accounting practices that kept feckless regulators at bay. Many individuals—disproportionately low-income and minority borrowers with spotty credit records—had apparently been exploited through predatory-lending techniques, including exorbitant fees, inadequate disclosure and high interest rates. In the end, more than 1,000 uninsured depositors lost millions of dollars in savings in one of the biggest bank failures of the past decade.

Yet unlike Enron, the people behind Superior’s collapse were not nouveau-riche corporate hustlers, but members of Chicago’s Pritzker family. The Pritzkers, whose two current patriarchs—Robert and his nephew Thomas—tie for 22nd place on Forbes’ list of the richest Americans, own an empire valued at more than $15 billion, including the Hyatt hotel chain, casinos, manufacturers and real estate, and they are major contributors to both political parties. They were equal partners in the private ownership of Superior with New York real estate developer Alvin Dworman, a longtime associate of Thomas’ father, Jay Pritzker, who died in 1999.

And Superior’s accounting and consulting was not provided by the disgraced Arthur Andersen, but by Ernst & Young. When regulators shuttered the bank, the publicity-shy Pritzkers, who take pride in their philanthropy (such as the prestigious international architecture award in the family name) quickly negotiated what appeared to be a generous settlement to stay out of the newspapers and the courtrooms.

But now both the Pritzkers and Ernst & Young may face the legal and public relations uproar they were trying to avoid. On November 1, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sued Ernst & Young for more than $2 billion. The FDIC alleges that the firm concealed its improper accounting practices at Superior to facilitate the sale of its consulting unit for $11 billion, leading to Superior’s insolvency and ultimately costing the FDIC $750 million. Ernst & Young denies responsibility, blaming the bank’s managers and board, failed regulation and changing economic conditions. Investigators from the FDIC, Treasury Department and the General Accounting Office (GAO) had cited all those causes for Superior’s failure, but also had criticized Ernst & Young’s flawed work and conflicts of interest.

Meanwhile, in a case that has received no public notice, uninsured depositors are bringing a charge of financial racketeering against one-time board chairwoman Penny Pritzker, her cousin Thomas Pritzker, Dworman, other bank principals and Ernst & Young. In this federal class-action suit filed under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, plaintiffs’ attorney Clint Krislov claims that those who controlled Superior induced depositors to put money in the bank, “corruptly†funneling money out of the bank to “fraudulently†profit the owners. Pritzker attorney Stephen Novack says that the defendants will ask to dismiss the case as having no merit. Such a RICO suit has rarely, if ever, been used to recover money lost in a bank failure, partly because the owners in such cases, in the words of bank consultant Bert Ely, “usually don’t have a pot to piss in.†But the Pritzkers have a gold-plated pot.

This may not be the last of legal battles stemming from the Superior failure. Published reports indicate that a federal grand jury has been investigating potential criminal wrongdoing and that the I

 

You tried to tell them Petre, now may they rot in hell.

 

:: I'm only trying to help ... but yes there's a lesson here as well.

Has anyone guessed the "secret" here ? Before I merge this thread with another ?

 

The secret is that we should all vote for Bloomberg, isn't it?

 

you mean the guy whos been keeping the republican party afloat in NY, he wrote them a check for $500,000

 

Sure, but he's not a republican anymore.

He also donated 4 million of his own money to get the 2004 convention in NYC.