The Hunt for Sarah October

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


If that's the rudder, how was he ever going to navigate the political divide in this country?

Remember his initial message of change concerned working with those who disagreed with him.

I guess saying a thing is a lot easier than doing a thing.

But leaving all that aside, what issues did Clinton and Obama materially disagree on????


I mean REALLY think about that.


[edit on 9-9-2008 by loam]




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:10 PM
link   
My brain doesn't seem to want to function. There is something in the way. Can't address your previous post yet... What is it? Ah yes...

Is the Loam voting Republican??

Woa


But...but you're mr. ecological issues!...

Help me out Loam. Am I missing something?



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam

If that's the rudder, how was he ever going to navigate the political divide in this country?


You got me Loam. I wasn't trying to come off as pro-Obama. I am like Wuppy, voting Libertarian. I was just not seeing how you infered the position you did concerning his decision to not choose Clinton.

Personally after all that friction during the primaries, I wouldn't think the two of them would make a good team. Simple as that in my eyes.

But I understand your response. Those were good points. If he emphasised the importance of working with people that disagreed with him, then yes, perhaps that message was hot air to begin with. I don't know why he didn't chose Clinton. I know I wouldn't myself.

I also am not qualified enough to debate this with most members on ATS. So I wont elaborate on what issues they did or didn't differ on. I wasn't trying to make a declartion...I was really just 'asking'.


[edit on 9-9-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
But...but you're mr. ecological issues!...

Help me out Loam. Am I missing something?




I seem to be getting this reaction a lot lately.

Ok, at the risk of derailing this thread, let me explain myself very briefly. We can save deeper discussion for perhaps another thread.

If you review my posting history very carefully, I have ALWAYS railed against injustice, exploitation and deceit wherever they may be found. For me those are NOT partisan principles. .... and I really do believe in denying ignorance.

I don't think anyone can argue I have been soft with the present administration or any of their blind supporters. But that's not to say I wish to see the opposing party suddenly achieve power utilizing the same B.S. means and tactics. That would NOT be an improvement in my view.

Make sense?

On the environmental thing...

Despite a tidal wave of opinion perhaps opposing my view, I have ALWAYS maintained environmentalism, when based on sound science, is a CONSERVATIVE principle. It's no mistake that 'conservative' and 'conservation' share the same root word.

Does that help?



[edit on 9-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
The impression however will still likely stick.


I have to agree with you.

For one, I'd seen the bit about "army" looking into Palin in several spots. So far, I've only seen the rebuttal to it here in this thread.

However, I'll admit outside of reading the original article you posted on another site I hadn't dug into it anymore.

I'll also admit this, given the firestorm Palin getting picked for Repub. VP slot has created my honest response when reading the original story about the "army of investigators" was "Hmmm...doesn't surprise me."

That's why I agree the impression will likely stick. There has been such a frenzy of coverage of Palin lately that it makes the story plausable.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Your response makes me feel like I came out too strong in my post. That wasn't my intent.

Your post was just fine, imo.

I'm glad you shared it and it was a valid question.


[edit on 9-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 



Originally posted by Frogs
That's why I agree the impression will likely stick. There has been such a frenzy of coverage of Palin lately that it makes the story plausable.


That's been the biggest surprise to all of this. The Obama camp panicked. Had they remained calm and just short of dismissive of her, they'd be in a much better place right now.

If something is immaterial, you don't spend every waking minute trying to discredit it.

I think they saw the same thing everyone else in America saw: a real and tangible example of change-- someone who appeared like the neighbor next door running on a national ticket.

It totally freaked them out.


[edit on 9-9-2008 by loam]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


You mean this desperate bunch known as democrats are looking real dirt this time instead of the pseudo-dirt they have been throwing at her for weeks now. It really is funny watching the democrat party implode before my very eyes. Obama's for change; yeah right.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I think it's funny that Sarah Palin has become the focus of such a massive investigation. I thought she running for the Vice-Presidency, not the Presidency. Shouldn't the focus be on McCain and Obama?

I think the fact that she's a true reformer, and represents real change, scares a lot of people on the other side of the aisle.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by loam
Despite a tidal wave of opinion perhaps opposing my view, I have ALWAYS maintained environmentalism, when based on sound science, is a CONSERVATIVE principle. It's no mistake that 'conservative' and 'conservation' share the same root word.

Does that help?



not in the least. If you are trying to equate natural conservation, with these phony neo-conservatives through etymology along, you are in for a very big surprise. Conservative in neo-con newspeak means keeping things the way they are, or returning to "golden times." You know, as in before pollution existed, because of the liberal media



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Most of the dirt came out on Obama slowly, and has never been given much attention by the press, and when they did, mainstream media ridiculed the evidence as much as possible. Within a few days of being announced as the Veep candidate, there has been an avalanche of dirt dished on Palin. What is even more bothering is that mainstream media pushes the distortion of the facts more than anything, while with Obama they concentrated on making excuses for him.

This makes the idea that an army of investigators have gone after Palin believable, and it sure looks like politics as usual. The democrats are looking like the underhanded players currently.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
not in the least. If you are trying to equate natural conservation, with these phony neo-conservatives through etymology along...


Yeah, that's what I was doing.


I'll try again,

I believe the sound management of natural resources is a conservative principle. In fact, in a more appropriate thread I'd be glad to discuss in great detail why. But I can leave you with the notion that natural resources represent a type of wealth that currently gets massively redistributed in a way that is not dissimilar to liberal entitlement programs and represents a form of extreme taxation.


Trust me. My view is not one based on semantics.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   


Democrats have airdropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers into Anchorage, the state capital Juneau and Mrs. Palin's hometown of Wasilla


Do you all think this is literally true? Why the term "army"? Don't you think the Rebublicans have had at least 30 people investigating Obama and/ or Biden? What is the problem with this? Why the outrage?



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
How about a front lines report?

The sleaze merchants arrived quite a few days ago. They had to put up no trespassing signs on her property, when they started noticing people trespassing and trying to sneak on her property to get at her family. They also had to put security in place she never needed before. Bad people stick out like a sore thumb in Wasilla.

Even Palin's opponents are appalled after the attack on her children.

When it gets cold, they will go away; if they don't step on a bear trap that is



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Even Palin's opponents are appalled after the attack on her children.


What on earth are you talking about? The fact that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant and it became a hot media topic? If so, I am an opponent but am no where near appalled? Except at how so many can not see the reality of the situation at hand and the way it will equate to the end of the world for most.

You know, some find that strange as Palin supports no sex education other than abstainance? Maybe Bristol was drunk when she got it on with her boyfriend as she is also an underage drinker. I thought the conservative republicans were always about family values? Instead, they fly the boy into the RNC! Are you kidding me....in most states that is called statutory rape and he would be going to jail! You think that plays well on Palin's other children who are still developmentally learning? Talk about the definition of hypocrite! Typical republican.

Lastly, how is it any worse than spending months discussing lapel pins or religous beliefs/connections? (Let's not get into Palin's here, the end is near, she will make it so, gotta fulfill the prophecy you know)



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by percievedreality

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Even Palin's opponents are appalled after the attack on her children.


What on earth are you talking about? The fact that her 17-year old daughter is pregnant and it became a hot media topic?


What part of Alaska do you live in? I was referring to locals who know Sarah.

I was referring to the accusation that Sarah's new child was really her Daughters and was fathered by either her Husband or Son. Did you miss that one? It was widely reported and I've seen it repeated as late as yesterday.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by percievedreality

Lastly, how is it any worse than spending months discussing lapel pins or religious beliefs/connections? (Let's not get into Palin's here, the end is near, she will make it so, gotta fulfill the prophecy you know)


It is not any worse. Both things are wrong. Just like making an issue of her daughter making a mistake that happens in ALL families is wrong. I suspect those throwing the mud most likely had pre-marital sex themselves if the truth were told.

By the way, I'm registered Undeclared and did not vote for Palin. I don't have to be for her to know sleaze when I see or hear it from the Soap Opera Crowd serving either Master. Both Parties make me sick with their behavior.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Don't live in Alaska myself, if you go south...I'm in Oregon. Yeah I heard that rumor, it was pretty tasteless. Oh well, Obama is a muslim right?

IMO, we need an administration that is free to run the country and fix our problems. Unfortunately, Sarah has her own problems (as do many of us)...a new baby that is developmentally and probably also physically disabled. She should devote her time to those needs, not running the country while trying to also be the mother she needs to be (which she choose to do because she is anti-abortion). I know Obama has children but they are nearly grown up and not requiring special attention.

I also tend to think to myself that, if she can't control her daughter, what is to make me think she can control anything? Then I hear stories of grants to build on property that they didn't even own resulting in 7 years of litigation. That is mismanagement and I see enough of that at work and in politics already. Not change, for sure. I have a near teenage daughter, and no way in hell is she going to make that "mistake". Leaders are not supposed to make mistakes. Tknock Obama for his experience and then name her your VP (with even less experience) and be quoted as saying the day before, 'What is it exactly that the VP does all day anyway?" You have got to be kidding, it is so laughable, and such a hypocracy!



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsTheQuestion

Politics is just Hollywood for ugly people.



LMAO, What a great line. I gotta write that down, soooo funny.

Ya should get a star just for that one-liner.

M



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by ItsTheQuestion
 


Oh, no. I get that.


Except in Palin's case it starts to look like Obama isn't the *change* he claims to be.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by loam]

I agree this isn't change this is politics as usual and to run on im going to do things different he sure fell in line quickly.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join