The Obama attack timeline

[shiva2999]

I've really had it up to here with these sanctimonious pr*cks.

**** you St Obama.

**** you and your ******** acolytes...

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

[Mouldsie]

:rofl:

[anEinherjer]

We've all had it up to here with you too bub. Doesn't seem to stop you either, though, does it? :)

[nehemiah]

"obama on clinton"

is anyone else aroused at that phrase?

[shiva2999]

We've all had it up to here with you too bub. Doesn't seem to stop you either, though, does it? :)

"Oh save me St Obama! You're our only hope! We need to be rescued from the cesspool of virulent partisanship that's dividing the country! And anyone that disagrees with me can **** off and die!"

[shiva2999]

"obama on clinton"

is anyone else aroused at that phrase?

It would have made Obama's mom wet.

[nehemiah]

PRS is not split like DU or DKos or any other political board/blog.

you keep posting "obamaniacs" like it's an actual reality in PRS.

it's not.

i'm not voting for clinton for 2 reasons: welfare reform and her being polite w/ john mccain.

but, by all means, continue the clinton martyr complex.

WE'RE ALL OUT TO GET HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!

it's fun stuff.

[anEinherjer]

"Oh save me St Obama! You're our only hope! We need to be rescued from the cesspool of virulent partisanship that's dividing the country! And anyone that disagrees with me can **** off and die!"

Yep, sounds a lot like Shiva, particularly the last part. :D

"You guys are evil! You support evil people! You did it on 9/11! The world needs to be rescued from the cesspool of your evil!"

[shiva2999]

PRS is not split like DU or DKos or any other political board/blog.

you keep posting "obamaniacs" like it's an actual reality in PRS.

it's not.


It's Obamamaniacs, not Obamaniacs.

And it is an actual reality here, even though I seemed to have shamed most of them into an angry silence.

[nehemiah]

It's Obamamaniacs, not Obamaniacs.

And it is an actual reality here, even though I seemed to have shamed most of them into an angry silence.if you call them obamaniacs - you can make up a song using the tune from animaniacs.

i haven't seen the obama lunacy in PRS that you get on other sites.

other than the usual sexist crap (that existed long before this election). but then again, the "clintonistas" haven't been shy about getting racist on this mofo, either.

[pmoon6]

I prefer Obamicons myself. They need to develop a patented dance because they dance so well.

They don't answer any of the allegations, they dance and spin, and talk about the "change" he will bring.

I think you're right Shiva, after your criticisms his fanboys seem to have flown the coop.

[shiva2999]

i haven't seen the obama lunacy in PRS that you get on other sites.

other than the usual sexist crap (that existed long before this election). but then again, the "clintonistas" haven't been shy about getting racist on this mofo, either.

1. Of course you haven't. You can thank me later.

2. Tell me where the Clintonistas have used racist arguments to denigrate Barack. The LBJ thing? The Jesse Jackson thing? The Matt Drudge thing? The Geraldine Ferraro thing?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Please.

[Crinoline]

"obama on clinton"

is anyone else aroused at that phrase?

No.

[anEinherjer]

Who were the obamamamamaniacs around here? Name names.

[nehemiah]

2. Tell me where the Clintonistas have used racist arguments to denigrate Barack. The LBJ thing? The Jesse Jackson thing? The Matt Drudge thing? The Geraldine Ferraro thing?plenty of anti-arabic crap from clintonistas. go read DKos or DU or talkleft and glory in it.

also - i have 2 push-poll calls already re: obama's blackitude and his arabic middle name. apparently, i live close enough to south philly to be blessed w/ such things.

[nehemiah]

No.liar.

[Crinoline]

liar.

Hey, I'll admit I get a bit 'giddy' thinking of an improper mother/daughter relationship on 'Gilmore Girls' but Obama/Hillary? No.

[dilbert]

It's Obamamaniacs, not Obamaniacs.

And it is an actual reality here, even though I seemed to have shamed most of them into an angry silence.


Perhaps they find talking to a brick wall more productive.

[shiva2999]

plenty of anti-arabic crap from clintonistas. go read DKos or DU or talkleft and glory in it.

also - i have 2 push-pull calls already re: obama's blackitude and his arabic middle name. apparently, i live close enough to south philly to be blessed w/ such things.

1. I only frequent DU because, unlike DKos, at least they have SOME liberals with balls.

And even at DU, the difference in behavior between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters is astonishngly different. It seems there are at least 20 rabid Obamamaniacs for every Clinton supporter. The Clintonistas argue reasonably and logically and as a result they are consistently swarmed by a combination of silly fan-boys and Republicans masquerading as Democrats. The Obama posse berate, belittle and heckle and use illogical arguments and sophistries constantly. You can argue with me if you wish but this is my honest assessment.

2. So the logic goes, "I get racist push-calls about Obama and Hillary is running against Obama so it must be Hillary who's responsible for them"?

[shiva2999]

Perhaps they find talking to a brick wall more productive.

Logic and reason don't get to take a holiday so you can feel better.

[nehemiah]

1. I only frequent DU because, unlike DKos, at least they have SOME liberals with balls.

And even at DU, the difference in behavior between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters is astonishngly different. It seems there are at least 20 rabid Obamamaniacs for every Clinton supporter. The Clintonistas argue reasonably and logically and as a result they are consistently swarmed by a combination of silly fan-boys and Republicans masquerading as Democrats. The Obama posse berate, belittle and heckle and use illogical arguments and sophistries constantly. You can argue with me if you wish but this is my honest assessment.

2. So the logic goes, "I get racist push-calls about Obama and Hillary is running against Obama so it must be Hillary who's responsible for them"?1. like i said, obamaniacs abound on those sites. i just haven't seen it in PRS.

2. who else would be paying for them?

[C Darwin]

Hillary? A racist? Don't I wish!

[notacon]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

This is priceless.

The "proof" of Obama "attacking" Hillary comes from Hillary's campaign...and identifies ANY instance of Obama disagreeing with Hillay as an "attack"!!!

Oh...that mean nasty black man is attacking that gentle polite white lady...OH WOE IS ME!!!!!!

Hillary is the poster girl for the GOP...and Shiva is doing anything he can to make sure that the GOP retains power in the US.

8896

[shiva2999]

2. who else would be paying for them?

Duh!

[shiva2999]

The "proof" of Obama "attacking" Hillary comes from Hillary's campaign...and identifies ANY instance of Obama disagreeing with Hillay as an "attack"!!!


Read it and weep.

It's there in black and white and no amount of foaming at the mouth will make it go away.

[nehemiah]

Duh!you?

ed rendell?

[ticatfan3]

"Oh save me St Obama! You're our only hope! We need to be rescued from the cesspool of virulent partisanship that's dividing the country! And anyone that disagrees with me can **** off and die!"
So you are either with him or against him.

[dilbert]

Logic and reason don't get to take a holiday so you can feel better.


Except when you talk about Hillary.

I can't speak for everybody, but I know people that feel Obama is a better choice than McCain or Clinton, despite his weaknesses.

[dilbert]

you?

ed rendell?

Republicans!!!!

[nehemiah]

Republicans!!!!but if republicans are really scared of hillary, why would they attack obamarama?

[dilbert]

but if republicans are really scared of hillary, why would they attack obamarama?

:dunno:

[shiva2999]

Except when you talk about Hillary.

I can't speak for everybody, but I know people that feel Obama is a better choice than McCain or Clinton, despite his weaknesses.

Unlike you, I judge Hillary by the same standards I use to judge everyone else.

And I am aware that you know people.

[shiva2999]

but if republicans are really scared of hillary, why would they attack obamarama?

Duh!

[anEinherjer]

Still no names of PRS Obamamamamaniacs. Does anyone know who these people are?? :dunno:

isoy confusado!

[dilbert]

Unlike you, I judge Hillary by the same standards I use to judge everyone else.



Actually, you don't. But we have been over that numerous times, so it is pointless to discuss.

[shiva2999]

Still no names of PRS Obamamamamaniacs. Does anyone know who these people are?? :dunno:

isoy confusado!

I feel your pain.

Paying attention is hard work.

[shiva2999]

Actually, you don't. But we have been over that numerous times, so it is pointless to discuss.

Actually I do and I can't imagine anyone with less credibility on the subject than yourself.

Your history betrays you.

[dilbert]

I am not claiming to objective on her. And I admit it. I don't like her or trust her.

What confuses me is why you give her a free pass on her endorsements of the path of desctructiveness the US and this adminstration has been on for the past 6 years.

[shiva2999]

I am not claiming to objective on her. And I admit it. I don't like her or trust her.

What confuses me is why you give her a free pass on her endorsements of the path of desctructiveness the US and this adminstration has been on for the past 6 years.

Claiming I've given Hillary a free pass is a strawman, because as I'm sure you'll realize when you think about it, I've done no such thing.

[anEinherjer]

I feel your pain.

Paying attention is hard work.

So.

Can't name anyone, huh? Didn't think so.

[TRIPLE P]

Sorry to intrude.... but what are you supposed to do in this election...

I mean, seriously....

A black guy, a woman, and a geriatric POW? For real?

[shiva2999]

So.

Can't name anyone, huh? Didn't think so.

Why should I embarrass individual cultists when they have a chance, however slight, of redeeming themselves?

Obamamaniacs are Obamamaniacs when they behave like Obamamaniacs.

If they don't, they are not.

The choice is up to you.

[shiva2999]

Sorry to intrude.... but what are you supposed to do in this election...

I mean, seriously....

A black guy, a woman, and a geriatric POW? For real?

Don't blame me.

I wanted Edwards.

[anEinherjer]

You're just like us libertarians! :rofl: Avoid any blame when shit goes wrong! :)

(Plus you still can't name anyone because there aren't any.)

[shiva2999]

You're just like us libertarians! :rofl: Avoid any blame when shit goes wrong! :)

(Plus you still can't name anyone because there aren't any.)

Don't be silly.

[Cornellian]

You'd be right to criticize those Obama supporters who ever said that Obama doesn't attack his political opponents. Problem is, I'm willing to bet that few "Obamaniacs" or "Obamamaniacs" or "Obamatrons" or whatever the **** you guys are coming up with these days ever made this claim.

And yet, Obama's attacks DO feel way less slimy than those coming from the Clinton campaign. That's because when Obama DOES criticize Hillary Clinton, his criticisms are, by any calculus you wish to make, factually accurate. He's not smearing his opponent. He's giving us *gasp* logical, reasoned thought as to why Hillary may not be the best choice.

We're not getting "she's a female affirmative action candidate" out of the Obama camp. Or when we do get something specious, a stern rebuke and a firing occurs immediately thereafter (ie - the 'Hillary's a monster' remarks). When Obama says that Hillary's FP experience is exaggerated, he's not just grasping at straws; he actually cites from those who had integral roles in the FP dilemma Hillary is taking credit for (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/09/irish_blast_clintons_foreign_policy_claim/9676/).

If you bother to actually read some of the articles that this "Attack Timeline" quotes from, you'll find that many of these quotes are taken out of context. But the last time you tried to smear Obama, challenging his supporters to list policy positions, you claimed not to want to read them after I supplied you with around 30 pages worth of policy credentials. So it doesn't surprise me that you chose not to, you know read. Either reading isn't your strong suit, or you just like to bitch a lot.

Ie - scroll to March 6th on the Attack Timeline. This is the quote you get:

"Obama suspects 'you're not going to get a bunch of particularly impressive answers' to questions on Hillary's foreign policy experience." The quote from the timeline makes it sound like Obama was calling Hillary a bumbler at the lectern. What Obama was actually saying was that Hillary could not give an impressive answer on policymaking during Bill Clinton's term because she wasn't involved in policymaking.

"I'm going to be interested in finding out what exactly she thinks makes her particularly well prepared, for example, on foreign policy," he told TIME on Wednesday. When her aides are asked, he notes, they cite, of all things, a speech, the one she gave on human rights in China in 1995. "Has she negotiated any treaties? When she traveled to these 80 countries, was she involved in policymaking? If so, what? My suspicion is that you're not going to get a bunch of particularly impressive answers."

Shiva, surely you, the master of wit and intellect, Lord of the PR&S board, were not confused by contextual quotations? Surely you did not simply find this website, look at it for about 5 seconds, marvel at the impressive dates and arrows, and choose to post it on this forum? Surely you aren't using your unwarranted sense of superiority as a proxy for actually debating the facts?

And you claim to have driven away Obama supporters. ROFL. I knew you were fake when you said "I don't need to waste my time reading". http://buffalorange.com/showthread.php?p=1971325#post1971325

[pmoon6]

You'd be right to criticize those Obama supporters who ever said that Obama doesn't attack his political opponents. Problem is, I'm willing to bet that few "Obamaniacs" or "Obamamaniacs" or "Obamatrons" or whatever the **** you guys are coming up with these days ever made this claim.

And yet, Obama's attacks DO feel way less slimy than those coming from the Clinton campaign. That's because when Obama DOES criticize Hillary Clinton, his criticisms are, by any calculus you wish to make, factually accurate. He's not smearing his opponent. He's giving us *gasp* logical, reasoned thought as to why Hillary may not be the best choice.

We're not getting "she's a female affirmative action candidate" out of the Obama camp. Or when we do get something specious, a stern rebuke and a firing occurs immediately thereafter (ie - the 'Hillary's a monster' remarks). When Obama says that Hillary's FP experience is exaggerated, he's not just grasping at straws; he actually cites from those who had integral roles in the FP dilemma Hillary is taking credit for (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/03/09/irish_blast_clintons_foreign_policy_claim/9676/).

If you bother to actually read some of the articles that this "Attack Timeline" quotes from, you'll find that many of these quotes are taken out of context. But the last time you tried to smear Obama, challenging his supporters to list policy positions, you claimed not to want to read them after I supplied you with around 30 pages worth of policy credentials. So it doesn't surprise me that you chose not to, you know read. Either reading isn't your strong suit, or you just like to bitch a lot.

Ie - scroll to March 6th on the Attack Timeline. This is the quote you get:

"Obama suspects 'you're not going to get a bunch of particularly impressive answers' to questions on Hillary's foreign policy experience." The quote from the timeline makes it sound like Obama was calling Hillary a bumbler at the lectern. What Obama was actually saying was that Hillary could not give an impressive answer on policymaking during Bill Clinton's term because she wasn't involved in policymaking.

"I'm going to be interested in finding out what exactly she thinks makes her particularly well prepared, for example, on foreign policy," he told TIME on Wednesday. When her aides are asked, he notes, they cite, of all things, a speech, the one she gave on human rights in China in 1995. "Has she negotiated any treaties? When she traveled to these 80 countries, was she involved in policymaking? If so, what? My suspicion is that you're not going to get a bunch of particularly impressive answers."

Shiva, surely you, the master of wit and intellect, Lord of the PR&S board, were not confused by contextual quotations? Surely you did not simply find this website, look at it for about 5 seconds, marvel at the impressive dates and arrows, and choose to post it on this forum? Surely you aren't using your unwarranted sense of superiority as a proxy for actually debating the facts?

And you claim to have driven away Obama supporters. ROFL. I knew you were fake when you said "I don't need to waste my time reading". http://buffalorange.com/showthread.php?p=1971325#post1971325Wow, someone musta touched a nerve.

I guess you get a little edgy when you have a dildo as your avatar.

[shiva2999]

But the last time you tried to smear Obama, challenging his supporters to list policy positions...

As a matter of fact, I didn't challenge his supporters to list policy positions.

You DO know that don't you?

If you're not sure, why don't you go check and post the quote here?

Obamamaniac.

[shiva2999]

Wow, someone musta touched a nerve.

I guess you get a little edgy when you have a dildo as your avatar.

Notice how he claims things were taken out of context but when he provides the context it sounds even worse?

[Cornellian]

Okay, let's play semantics!

"It's day one of President Obama's administration. What does he do?"

I'm pretty sure that if someone is asking what a political candidate would do when elected, looking at his policy positions would give that person a pretty good idea what the candidate would do. In this case, on day one of Obama's administration, it would appear that he would pursue an unabashedly Progressive agenda.

Ass.

[shiva2999]

Okay, let's play semantics!

"It's day one of President Obama's administration. What does he do?"


Only an Obamamaniac can accuse someone of saying something they didn't and then whine about semantics.

I'm sorry I didn't say what you wanted me to say.

[Cornellian]

Notice how he claims things were taken out of context but when he provides the context it sounds even worse?

It doesn't concern me if you find Obama's factually accurate warrant for his claim to be worse than the claim itself. In your initial posts you were bemoaning the fact that Obama's supporters claim that he is a post-partisan candidate, when in reality he succumbs to the same mudslinging bullshit as any other candidate.

Oh save me St Obama! You're our only hope! We need to be rescued from the cesspool of virulent partisanship that's dividing the country! And anyone that disagrees with me can **** off and die!

I can reasonably infer that was your point, yes? It's never really clear with you though, Shiva. You often make points in a cute, roundabout manner. Then when someone tries to address the point, you claim you never made it. Cute rhetorical tactic; not a good way to win an argument.

Obama's claim from March 6 that Hillary could not give a convincing answer on foreign policy experience is buttressed by the warrant that she often exaggerates her foreign policy credentials, which is a remark that David Trimble, the man credited with brokering peace in Northern Ireland, knows to be factually accurate. This warrant was not included in the quote as listed on the Obama attack timeline. Lacking the warrant, the quote appears to be a vicious, mudslinging personal attack. Aided by the warrant, it appears to be a factually accurate claim.

It's not mudslinging if what you're saying is true.

[ddpderek]

I thought Hillary was the mean one.

All the Obama Babies can stop crying.

[shiva2999]

It doesn't concern me if you find Obama's factually accurate warrant for his claim to be worse than the claim itself. In your initial posts you were bemoaning the fact that Obama's supporters claim that he is a post-partisan candidate, when in reality he succumbs to the same mudslinging bullshit as any other candidate.


It's one thing to say this, 'you're not going to get a bunch of particularly impressive answers' to questions on Hillary's foreign policy experience." when you presume he has meaningful reasons to make this assertion.

But when you find this was actually said, "I'm going to be interested in finding out what exactly she thinks makes her particularly well prepared, for example, on foreign policy. Has she negotiated any treaties? When she traveled to these 80 countries, was she involved in policymaking? If so, what? My suspicion is that you're not going to get a bunch of particularly impressive answers." as if negotiating treaties and making policy is the benchmark for foreign policy experience, well then it renders the statement not merely an attack, but a ridiculous attack.

I can reasonably infer that was your point, yes? It's never really clear with you though, Shiva. You often make points in a cute, roundabout manner. Then when someone tries to address the point, you claim you never made it. Cute rhetorical tactic; not a good way to win an argument.

Sorry, but I don't dumb down everything so the witless can avoid confusion.

And I think it speaks volumes about Obamamania that asking his acolytes to be accurate about what was said is classified a "cute rhetorical tactic".

[anEinherjer]

Oh look! There's one!

It's about time, no help from the Shivster....

[shiva2999]

Oh look! There's one!


How perceptive!

Nothing slips past you, huh?

[anEinherjer]

Just helping others who might have been confused.

You don't take ribbing well, do you.

[shiva2999]

Just helping others who might have been confused.

You don't take ribbing well, do you.

I take ribbing just fine.

How about you?

[anEinherjer]

Could've fooled me. I'm not the one bitching and moaning and calling people retards.

[shiva2999]

Could've fooled me. I'm not the one bitching and moaning and calling people retards.

I empathize with your incompetence.