The Daily Obamanation .... ALL ROLLED INTO ONE

as opposed to obamas ONE

which was just a remodel of something we already have

i notice how you ignored the last part

 

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?

 

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

 

wow thats a great reason

the voters also voted in george bush

 

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:



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.

 

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:

 

: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...

 

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 ?

 

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:

 

Yet, as I type this, the news is talking about how he has attracted republican voters throughout the primaries.

 

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

 

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

http://www.republicansforobama.org/

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

 

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.

 

who are you supporting again?

 

http://www.demsforronpaul.org/

Fuck you really got me there!!!

::

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

 

...:clap:

 

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

 

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

 

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

getting shit passed doesnt suddenly not make it shit

 

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 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 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 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:

 

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

::

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

BTW ... you like The NEW REPUBLIC ?

Reputable sight is it ???

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

--------------
<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></td></tr><tr><td><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td></td><td>DISCUSS ARTICLE [747]</td><td>|</td><td></td><td>PRINT</td><td>|</td><td></td><td>EMAIL ARTICLE</td></tr></tbody></table>
</td></tr><tr><td></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 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 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>

 

ron paul the racist:

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

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

 

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

Good stuff.

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

 

Ron Paul the racist: