It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GOP lawmaker calls on Sarah Palin to lead new party to replace Republicans

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




What is it that you have done to make the nation a better place?


Where do I start? Maybe with 2 years 4 months and 17 days in Southeast Asia, where I was with a SOG/MACV unit. While there I was awarded several citations and ribbons along with a bunch of gadgets and a couple of stars. All of these came at a price but that is not what you ask about.




Have you ever willingly subjected yourself and your views to national scrutiny by the msm "journalists" who have no problem making fun of anyone they dislike or don't know personally?


The answer to this could only be no. Primarily because they, as well as yourself, would not likely be prepared to deal with them. I would be either ignored or passed off as crazy, partly true, because I know many truths and would express them if asked.

As to my judgement of others i see and hear speak. ie-"our political leaders".

Once you will learn to listen closely to what they "don't say" when they speak and watch their facial expressions, you will begin to better understand how and why the world operates as it does.

I hope this will be of some help to you in the furture.




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Semicollegiate

What a bunch of crap! You forgot to add this from your link:



This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements. Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made. (All of these entries date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.)
Read more at www.snopes.com...


Let's take the first one, for example. She was speaking to a group of wealthy democrats on repealing the Bush tax cuts to get the economy back on track: In context, it reads:



"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Read more at www.snopes.com...


You really should read your entire source before posting something.

PS. This thread is about Sarah Palin, not Hillary Clinton.


Sarah Palin is defined by how close she is to the socialist outlook. She is socialist enough to be in national politics.

The context is as socialistic as the quote itself. Why are the rich being taxed in the first place?

The rich should be the source of mortgage and investment money, not the invisible inflation tax.

Hitler would have said it the same way.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Sarah Palin is now endorsing Doug Ducey, the Cold Creamery Sleazeball for Arizona governor, saying he's a "job creator". He ran the ice cream franchise (basically a pyramid scheme) into the ground and ripped off the savings of his franchisees. Many have had to declare bankruptcy, lost their homes, savings, etc. because of Ducey's swindling.



He conned these people into investing in a franchise that he knew they could not make money off of, and when the going got tough Doug Ducey got going...along with a nice bonus.
...
This franchise is nothing but a pyramid scheme aimed at taking advantage of hard working individuals with entrepreneurial spirits.
--A Former Franchisee
...
Yes attitude is everything but when someone comes in and intentionally feeds you lie after lie with docs to back it up, it then constitutes FRAUD… Most of us have been devastated by these unscrupulous vultures and it may not be in this life but they will answer for it, hopefully & prayerfully it will be in this life and I want to be there when it happens.
--A Former Franchisee




Palin Endorses Doug Ducey



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: Semicollegiate
a) context is everything
b) you may not agree with what she is saying, but it appears to be presented in coherent sentences, and
c) if you actually read the snopes page that you are citing, it totally validates my comment 'a'

Sorry Dude...massive fail.




The context is socialist. Is the Democratic Party the Socialist Party?

The sentences are coherent but the meaning is

a) obfuscated

b) totalitarian

c) both

Freudian slip.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Sarah Palin is defined by how close she is to the socialist outlook. She is socialist enough to be in national politics.


Was that a Freudian slip of some sort? If this is your attempt at bringing your discussion back on track, you failed again. Maybe you really don't like Palin as much as you claim. Putting down other women in politics does not negate Palin's obvious ignorance and lack of ability to lead anything.


originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Freudian slip.


Priceless!!!
edit on 8/7/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Sarah Palin is defined by how close she is to the socialist outlook. She is socialist enough to be in national politics.


Was that a Freudian slip of some sort? If this is your attempt at bringing your discussion back on track, you failed again. Maybe you really don't like Palin as much as you claim. Putting down other women in politics does not negate Palin's obvious ignorance and lack of ability to lead anything.


originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Freudian slip.


Priceless!!!


Ignorance can be better than dogmatic error. Sarah Palin has a bit of nice ignorance.

Leadership in politics is always theft from producers.

What government made the Industrial Revolution?


edit on 7-8-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
I say GREAT idea. Let Palin be the face of a new political party. I say let the Tea Baggers break clean of the Republican party. Let them create their own caucus, allowing the more reasonable Republicans to not be held hostage within their own party. Let them allow the reasonable Republicans to no longer pretend that compromise is a dirty word. Best of all though, with a third party caucus, it would effectively give the majority of the house back to the Democrats.

Do it Sarah, pretty please with sugar on top. In fact, I triple dog dare you.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
I say GREAT idea. Let Palin be the face of a new political party. I say let the Tea Baggers break clean of the Republican party. Let them create their own caucus, allowing the more reasonable Republicans to not be held hostage within their own party. Let them allow the reasonable Republicans to no longer pretend that compromise is a dirty word. Best of all though, with a third party caucus, it would effectively give the majority of the house back to the Democrats.

Do it Sarah, pretty please with sugar on top. In fact, I triple dog dare you.


Every time Palin talks; In the democratic steering committees the libs all stand up an do a little happy dance and clap their hands in glee. She just made their jobs a lot easier.

I don't think the Tparty folks will welcome Palin with open arms; even as ideologically dogmatic as they are, they know Palin is a train wreak waiting to happen and they don't need that. They have their sights set on Romney to at least give them some credibility. Good luck with that....


But when push comes to shove the T party will fall in line with the GOP because that's their only option. I do hope the T party holds a convention. That should be very interesting!
edit on 7-8-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
I say GREAT idea. Let Palin be the face of a new political party.


LOL My husband said the same thing.

I really would LOVE to see a good, REAL conservative take a leadership spot in the GOP. I would LOVE to see a strong Libertarian candidate. I would dearly LOVE to have a choice instead of the "better of the two evils". But Sarah Palin ain't it!



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You see, when Hillary Clinton or Warren runs, we will be able to be just as critical of them as the leftists were of Palin. Palins' critics set the bar, so to speak.

See - I think this is interesting...why Clinton or Warren as examples? Because they're women? Why not offer up a man as an example?

I often wonder if conservatives see this kind of thing as being more about tit for tat - and that women are nothing more than a novelty act on the political stage

Instead of drumming up support for or choosing the best possible choice for VP - they went with Palin

If Palin fails in the political arena, and people criticize her - it's because she's a woman. So - attack the Democrats women

Pelosi sucks just as much as Palin in your eyes - apples to apples - oranges to oranges...

How come if Palin sucks you don't pick on Biden?

Funny - people aren't criticizing Palin because she's a girl. Her gender isn't part of the equation

:-)



edit on 8/7/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: words...



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: beezzer

You see, when Hillary Clinton or Warren runs, we will be able to be just as critical of them as the leftists were of Palin. Palins' critics set the bar, so to speak.

See - I think this is interesting...why Clinton or Warren as examples? Because they're women? Why not offer up a man as an example?

I often wonder if conservatives see this kind of thing as being more about tit for tat - and that women are nothing more than a novelty act on the political stage

Instead of drumming up support for or choosing the best possible choice for VP - they went with Palin

If Palin fails in the political arena, and people criticize her - it's because she's a woman. So - attack the Democrats women

Pelosi sucks just as much as Palin in your eyes - apples to apples - oranges to oranges...

How come if Palin sucks you don't pick on Biden?

Funny - people aren't criticizing Palin because she's a girl. Her gender isn't part of the equation

:-)




Gender will be part of the equation, that's about as sure as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Just making some pre-emptive comments and observations is all.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You guys don't even believe in her

:-)

If you were honest - you wouldn't need to make this about gender



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The candidates message, goal(s), ideology, plan, etc should be subject to debate.

Their qualifications should be subject to debate.

Race, gender, age, should not be subject to debate.

But the leftists have shown all of us that race, gender are part-and-parcel of debate.

Palin was subjected to that continuously. From the birth of her son, to constant mocking on all forms of media. NOW wouldn't even stand up in her defense. But then again, NOW is just a leftist front.
Disagree with Obama's policies? Then it all becomes about race.

When/if Clinton and/or Warren run for office, their policies should be subject to debate. Any attempt to obfuscate from that topic by crying about sexism or gender inequality should be met with a size 12 firmly up the butt.

People have made it their obsession to comment wrongly on Palin's IQ, her children, her gender.

It should only be about the issues. But, as we've seen countless times, it can never be just about that.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Race, gender, age, should not be subject to debate.


So, why did you bring up only women politicians in your post here? www.abovetopsecret.com... YOU brought gender into this debate, then act as though you're above all that by telling us all that we should only criticize based on ideology. And to top it off, you blame it on the left! LOL



But the leftists have shown all of us that race, gender are part-and-parcel of debate.




NOW wouldn't even stand up in her defense.


As if NOW should stand up for her simply because she's a woman? An ignorant, arrogant woman? That's not what they're about. NOW actually endorsed Obama/Biden because of their stances on women. Palin would be a kick in women's throats and most women know that.



People have made it their obsession to comment wrongly on Palin's IQ, her children, her gender.


Men have IQs and children, too. I've never seen a criticism of Palin based on the fact that she's a woman.



It should only be about the issues.


I disagree. If a person is a hypocrite, ignorant, a liar, sneaky... that is ALL up for criticism.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I disagree. If a person is a hypocrite, ignorant, a liar, sneaky... that is ALL up for criticism.


Okay.

Then what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer


When/if Clinton and/or Warren run for office, their policies should be subject to debate. Any attempt to obfuscate from that topic by crying about sexism or gender inequality should be met with a size 12 firmly up the butt.


Oh no....are you saying we can't accuse those two of being the anti Christ or demon possessed? That's just not fair!!!



www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

lolz

Someone will.


I'd like to see college transcripts, personally. It is, after all, a job they are applying to.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
Then what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.


I know that. You're the one that seems to think you aren't "allowed" to criticize anyone on the left. That's all in your head. In fact, you have done so MANY, MANY times. Yet you play the victim... I don't get it. Obama and his administration have been HIGHLY criticized for everything under the sun, real or imagined, and you have been at the top of the heap. And here, you act as though you haven't been allowed or won't in the future. That's crazy-talk!

Cognitive dissonance much?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: beezzer
Then what's good for the goose, is good for the gander.


I know that. You're the one that seems to think you aren't "allowed" to criticize anyone on the left. That's all in your head. In fact, you have done so MANY, MANY times. Yet you play the victim... I don't get it. Obama and his administration have been HIGHLY criticized for everything under the sun, real or imagined, and you have been at the top of the heap. And here, you act as though you haven't been allowed or won't in the future. That's crazy-talk!

Cognitive dissonance much?


I've never cried victim. That's property of the leftists.

I have and always will criticize. And, as usual, I will be called racist, sexist and have the self-same leftinistas detract from the central issues of criticism.

Everyone is fair game and there is no aspect that is off the table. I like that.

I suspect the progressive left will be soiling themselves though whenever any criticism comes their way though.

As usual.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
The candidates message, goal(s), ideology, plan, etc should be subject to debate.

Their qualifications should be subject to debate.

Race, gender, age, should not be subject to debate.



Right.



originally posted by: beezzer

But the leftists have shown all of us that race, gender are part-and-parcel of debate.


You seem to be confusing cause and effect? Or have you wiped the far-right rhetoric of Witch-Doctor, Keep the White House White, Go back to Kenya, Black agenda ad infinium and worse nonsense from your memory?

Yes race entered the debate...cuz a whole lot of racists began saying some wildly racist things?



originally posted by: beezzer
Palin was subjected to that continuously. From the birth of her son


I don't even know what you are referring to? I follow politics closely and don't remember that bit? What about her son?
I just remember an endless stream of insanely ignorant and often bitter things she said.


originally posted by: beezzer
to constant mocking on all forms of media.

How is mocking sexist? It seems universal in partisan politics?


originally posted by: beezzer
NOW wouldn't even stand up in her defense. But then again, NOW is just a leftist front.


Again...don't know what you are talking about? Maybe you are following the wrong kind of news? I had to google NOW and Palin and got this..NOW defends Palin against Maher attack as a first return
dailycaller.com...


You seem to be searching for outlier, sensationalist news to make a very reaching point? And in the case above even failing in that?




originally posted by: beezzer

Disagree with Obama's policies? Then it all becomes about race.



Lord...the right loves to play that race card. Say racist crap, and people of conscience will call you on it. Question his policies and people of a different view will debate that. Very RARELY do the two mix...But all day long, when the right wing loses a debate on it's merits they retreat to that nonsense of Racism...Irony is the flavor of the modern day right wing. Racism is both a dishonest tool to drum up support and a dishonest defense for the right wing when the merits of a debate don't support their view...No, I am not calling you a racist, I am saying your argument sucks.



originally posted by: beezzer
When/if Clinton and/or Warren run for office, their policies should be subject to debate. Any attempt to obfuscate from that topic by crying about sexism or gender inequality should be met with a size 12 firmly up the butt.



Unless of course they are attacked in a sexist manner? You seem to be declaring that people are not entitled to respond to racist or sexist attacks? And gender inequality is a topic discussed by both men and women. Politicians of all parties...are you suggesting that women political candidates are forbidden from discussing the topic? For that matter, ditto racism?



originally posted by: beezzer
People have made it their obsession to comment wrongly on Palin's IQ, her children, her gender.

It should only be about the issues. But, as we've seen countless times, it can never be just about that.


Her IQ is the issue and should be the issue with any presidential candidate. Honestly her IQ is not as much a factor with me as her seemingly vitriolic view toward anyone educated or her unwillingness to acknowledge areas where she is less than informed (and she has proven there is a massive amount of areas she is ignorant of)....And basic US History and Supreme Court rulings (where she could not name ANY) are fair questions for someone that wants to be President or VP...geez beez...can't believe any of this needs to be explained..
edit on 7-8-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-8-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join