Sarah Palin's VP Selection Is A Trojan Horse

I'm sorry, but your assumptions, or should I say "facts" are completely absurd. No one would have sympathy for the Republican party after "hidden facts" are revealed to expose Palin's "true nature". The media would only point out how conniving the Republican party is- not feel sorry for it. Whenever skeletons come out of the closest, disappointment and doubt fill the minds of the general public. Not sympathy. Your super "trojan horse" conspiracy has no foundation. Its not grounded in anything but fabricated hoopla. And, where and who are your "sources" coming from? What status gives you so much inside information? This thread just shows that I, or anyone for that matter, could construe the most compelling, intriguing conspiracy and swear by it that its true because some unconfirmed secret sources told you so. Posts like this, without a hint of corroborative evidence, shouldn't be on the front page...let alone this site. What happened to deny ignorance? Anyone who believes this is ignorant. Sorry for being blunt, but seriously...really? I'm mean really?

Let's just pretend for a moment that you are indeed honest, and you have those sources. Why post this conspiracy without them? You may say something like, "because if they knew my identity, they'd kill me" or some dumb alibi of the likes. Here's the truth, and the fundamentals this site is built on: Stories without evidence are just stories. Deny stories. Deny ignorance.

reply to post by feydrautha


i'm sad to say, this is evidence as far as i'm concerned, that you can do whatever the hell you want provided you know the right people. had this been some average joe, just the cigarettes alone would've been used to destroy his reputation in the religious community he attended, not to mention social circles. the guys at the top, they do whatever they want and hold the rest of us to impossible and/or difficult standards.

edit to add: "and/or difficult"



[edit on 4-9-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
... just the cigarettes alone would've been used to destroy his reputation in the religious community he attended ...

That pic is photoshopped.

And as for the other drugs; I'd rather associate with an honest drug user than a holier than thou religious nut-job that thinks he knows what's best for everyone. But that's just me.

reply to post by TheComte


obama is a cigarette smoker. it's OK if he's a cigarette smoker because it's not against the law. i don't care what he did in his past! i don't care if he freebased, because i can overlook what a person did ONCE UPON A TIME. the point i'm making applies to everyone at the top, not just obama. think of all the people who have been harrassed, maligned, denied jobs, bitched at, sued, fired, and otherwise ostracized because they smoked cigarettes. yet this guy (he could've easily been a repub or independent as well), is a candidate for president and he smokes. how that happens, you know and i know, is all about who you know.

Originally posted by TheComte
What do you mean "do better?" If you are insinuating that doing drugs is worse than banning books then I couldn't disagree more. In fact, it's pretty ridiculous.

So you think it's good that she tried to ban books? Nazis banned books, didn't they? Banning books kind of goes against the notion of a free society, does it not? I guess it's not surprising that the Republicans chose her, since they are currently swinging the US dangerously close to fascism. She'll definitely help their cause then. Good luck!

nazis also appreciated thought policing, you know, like political correctness today...

banned books... banned ideas... you mean like the ten commandments from public spaces? like voluntary prayer in school? conservatives have no corner on the market when it comes to banishment of opposing ideals... what color is that kettle?

fascism? no one does it better then the liberal left...

Originally posted by TheComte

Originally posted by undo
... just the cigarettes alone would've been used to destroy his reputation in the religious community he attended ...

That pic is photoshopped.

And as for the other drugs; I'd rather associate with an honest drug user than a holier than thou religious nut-job that thinks he knows what's best for everyone. But that's just me.

he is a smoker, thats very well known... he hides it, though, not very honest, eh?

those cigarettes probably have tobacco grown on daddy gore's tobacco farm, too...

talk about carbon footprint!

associating with an honest drug user? have you met any meth addicts? you'd elect one into office? hey, at least they're honest!

Originally posted by undo
obama is a cigarette smoker.

So what? I was just saying that pic is photoshopped so it's not evidence of anything.

think of all the people who have been harrassed, maligned, denied jobs, bitched at, sued, fired, and otherwise ostracized because they smoked cigarettes.

I didn't know that smoking cigarettes was this much a problem for people. So, only the elite are allowed to smoke cigarettes without being harassed? And since Obama knows the 'right people,' he can smoke cigs and run for President, at the same time?

I don't think I'm getting your point about the cigarettes. There is no way that should be detrimental to his campaign. But, to me, the fact that someone takes it upon herself to decide to ban some books should be. As a society we should be trying to become more free, not less free. And drug use comes into this as there should be less restrictions, not more. But that's off topic.

Originally posted by feydrautha
he is a smoker, thats very well known... he hides it, though, not very honest, eh?

He hides it, but it's very well known. Nothing like contradicting yourself in your first sentence.

those cigarettes probably have tobacco grown on daddy gore's tobacco farm, too...

talk about carbon footprint!

So? Lots of people grow tobacco.

associating with an honest drug user? have you met any meth addicts? you'd elect one into office? hey, at least they're honest!

Except meth wasn't one of the drugs you brought up about Obama. Even so, given the choice between that and the religious nut-job type I'd probably still go with the meth user. Either way you're going to get ripped off, but at least they're not going to force you to watch reruns of O'Reilly Factor while invoking the name of God.

And if you are going to go on about drugs you have to take into account that a lot of Republicans use drugs as well. Yes, even ones in office. So, it's really a non-issue.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by TheComte]

[edit on 4-9-2008 by TheComte]

it doesn't matter what drugs obama did once upon a time. everyone has the opportunity to change. what matters, isn't even that he's obama. he could be mccain or anyone else, at the top.

i dunno what planet you've been on, but here on earth, being a cigarette smoker gets you left out of alot of things, harrassed and maligned, and liberals have been just as dogmatic about it as conservatives. this proves to me you can even become a successful politican and run for president, be a smoker, and people will look the other way if ya know the right people.

it's a commentary on life in the usa, and perhaps all of western civilization. and not a specific beef with obama's cigarette habit!

i suspect this is just one of many such social rules that are applied to the average person and used to keep them down, to impede their progress and to basically deny them the same perks of the upper eschelons of our western societies. no doubt about it, the guys and gals at the top have written their own tickets with plenty of wiggle room but give us tickets that have hundreds of rules they wouldn't keep themselves.

my dad use to say.... "don't do as i do, do as i say," and i still maintain that is pretty darn good advice. but it can also be abused if the person saying it doesn't have your best interests at heart. they could've held obama back as well, for it, but fact of the matter is, they didn't.

that says alot.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by feydrautha
he is a smoker, thats very well known... he hides it, though, not very honest, eh?

Obama's cigarette smoking. Yes, he tries to "hide it" but it's common knowledge since at least 2004 and in your own words is a "very well known" fact.

Hmmm, someone who is not very good at being secretive. Perhaps that's just the kind of president the USA needs at this time.

south park nails it


[edit on 4-9-2008 by undo]

do you think it is possible that Palin was chosen to hurt McCain? I've been checking my premises as to why she was chosen and it doesn't add up to any conclusion that would warrant the view that she was to help McCain win.

If you lay out everything we know about her, no political strategist would so callously call her even an alternative choice given the options. They would have had to know that conservatives would gang up on her more intellectually and ferociously than the left-wing media who as of now, has only attacked her for less interesting things. They would have to know that the instant hype would die down. That after thier cloudy reactions clear up, they're going to see her for what she is. They would have to know that Christians and women would turn to realize how condescending McCain really is to thier cause. The old 'throw the dog a bone to shut it up' ruse is the very same ruse they have launched out at against the Democrats who have used this tactic with minorities. They would have to know that the moderates and independents would see this is a political, not a governing move. I could go on for a few more paragraphs, but you get the point.

And then I remembered something Rush Limbaugh said a while back. Torpedo McCain right now, let obama win this election, and then sweep everything in 2012.

Right now, we're seeing Obama jump ahead points in battleground states. I'm not suprised that this is happening, but am suprised at how quickly it occured.

My original hypothesis, that Palin would eventually excuse herself, still seems valid at this time. But, I can't wonder if I myself didn't look too far ahead, didn't look at the bigger political picture. Cui bono? Over the next four years, the Republicans do.

Given the heightened state of security, the potential conflicts with Iran and Russia, (and perhaps others we do not yet know about), the flailing economy....people will blame Obama on this. People will see obama as a man of false promises, a person who could not solve thier problems, and was unable to do positive with the situation. The pride in Obama is that he's not the status quo, but even still, the present problems we have to day will not be properly addressed in the first four years of his office. Even if they were, it would be some time that we would see even the slightest benefit. His comment on how long it would take to see some benefit of drilling in the gulf is so apropos what awaits for him. And this, I think, is what is perhaps thoroughly thought out over the last few months.

If Obama stumbles, and I garuantee you he will, it could lock the GOP into the whitehouse for several decades. Remember what happened right before Roosevelt came into office, and what happened when he came to fix it? Same thing, just reverse the parties.

I could be totally out in left-field on this, but I'm curious as to how you'd respond to what I've said here. Is it too far from reality? Or am i just trying to still figure out why Palin was chosen by McCain's advisors.

37 million watched Palin speak.

If that is a Trojan Horse, it sure will have everyone fooled

reply to post by TheComte


stating he is a smoker but hides it, is not contradiction.

you would elect a meth user? that explains the o!bot mentality...

cut off your nose to spite your face...

destroy the country before electing a gop

keep america vulnerable and dependant on foreign oil before drilling our own...

i have no prob with cannibus, i approve of it before alcohol anyday

Originally posted by TheComte
As a society we should be trying to become more free, not less free.

This coming from someone that supports the most out spoken big brother party we have ever seen. I don't understand this mindset. If there was ever such a thing as mass mind control, users like this would be a good example of it in action. And it's not like you would even know it, so spare me your refutations. The liberal democratic party is heavily for total govt control and EU imperialist domination. It's like we learn nothing from history, the liberal democratic party is like a fascist dictator waiting in sleep for morons to wake it up. You think your voting Democrat, but your wrong, the democratic party has been hijacked and is now the liberal democratic party. Round and round we go, when it will stop ....we will all be slaves.



[edit on 4-9-2008 by Sheeper]

reply to post by Sheeper


Nice try. And, nice bunch of assumptions you just made. I won't be voting Democrat or Republican, as I am not American. And I certainly don't support any political party. I know they're two, or three, sides of the same coin but you apparently do not. But you can go ahead and do what you want. I make my own freedom. Just because I am liberal in my beliefs, does not mean I support the Liberal Party.

reply to post by TheComte


Well you come across as if you support the liberal party. And ahhh I see you are Canadian. Well then, please, if you will......mind your own. Thanks! And don't give me this, it affects the whole worlds nonsence, thats just justification for having your nose in our crotch, the leader of Russia or China or Venuzuala affects us all yet we arn't all up in there bizness.

OH and you ARE defending probably the most fascist person that has ever ran for POTUS, not to mention a person that isn't qualified for the position and is only in this position because he is ...ahem.....you know, got to be careful you know, don't want to commit a thought crime, the liberals and their PC brigade will show up to tell me what I can and can't say. Besides I know how you sheep jump to the 'you must be racist' assumptions.

***Disclaimer***

reply to post by Sheeper


Thanks, but if it's all the same to you I'll post my opinion if I like. I'm sure the mods will remove it if I do anything wrong.

Unfortunately, what happens States-side does have somewhat of an impact on Canada. Always has, always will. Harper is like a mini-Bush. But at least we don't have any book burners yet. That is why I'm concerned about Palin.

Anyways, so all you Palin supporters agree that book banning is good for society then? Yes, no?

[edit on 4-9-2008 by TheComte]

reply to post by TheComte


I tried to look up the book banning acusation thing and all I can find is it's based off comments she made to a librarian about some books with foul language, she did not push for book banning, show me the bill she tried to pass that would of allowed her to actually ban the books. For all any of these instigators such as yourself know, she could of said it as a joke or it may have been taken out of context ooooor..... she didn't say it all. All we really know for sure is that she never actually attempted to get any books banned.

[edit on 4-9-2008 by Sheeper]

reply to post by Sheeper


It was reported in the NY Times. She fired the librarian because she would not go along with it. So I think it is true and it did happen.

I started a thread about the book banning attempt if you want to continue to discuss just that aspect.

www.abovetopsecret.com...