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.

 

Palin: Obama Is ‘Palling Around With Terrorists’

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 

I gave you a star but you really deserve an applause. Maybe a mod will recognize the quality of your post.





posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
The anti-war movement was huge, and the youth of the country either held sit-ins or went the way of the Weathermen.


It seems to me that I made the distinction between you and militant radicals. This still does not make them 'terrorists', just misguided. They, like you and I, were trying to fight a corrupt system. We did it through protest, they took a more active route. It was wrong, but it hardly qualifies as terrorism. The general public did not feel they were being targeted, like they do by Al Qaeda. As they saw it, their targets were 'enemy combatants'. Terrorists go after whoever will get the most attention, civilians! You lived during that time and should know better. Had they blown up schools or churches, you would have a point. Surely you still remember who 'the Man' was!



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 



Originally posted by JaxonRoberts

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
The anti-war movement was huge, and the youth of the country either held sit-ins or went the way of the Weathermen.


It seems to me that I made the distinction between you and militant radicals. This still does not make them 'terrorists', just misguided.


I think it is your views that are misguided. Sad, since you should know better. You're trying to paint a rosey face on people who committed terrorist acts. They were misguided, alright...misguided terrorists.



They, like you and I, were trying to fight a corrupt system. We did it through protest, they took a more active route. It was wrong, but it hardly qualifies as terrorism.


Man, you are equivocating. It was textbook terrorism. What do you call it? Civil disobedience? Vandalism?



The general public did not feel they were being targeted, like they do by Al Qaeda.


Really? The 25 year old NYPD cop or his pregnant wife didn't feel threatened? How do you know that?




As they saw it, their targets were 'enemy combatants'.


More justification for terrorists. You won't get any sympathy from me; I see right through your BS.

Try selling it to the youngsters. They might believe you, might even give you a star.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
As stated, McCain bombed civillians, Ayers bombed... empty bathrooms and painted a rainbow on a bridge. Yeah, real terrorist there. And I love how they take a quote wwaaaaayyy out of context and are pissed off that Ayers said it even though they know they took it out of context. And after all the BS, Ayers STILL hasn't been arrested has he? Meaning the FBI agree this is all BS. Or will one of you do a citizens arrest? Pathetic. The economy collpases, more people die in a pointless invasion, Osama is still on the loose, and here you are screaming about a college professor who protested the Vietnam War.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 
Right, right. Sad I didn't give you one? And being called a youngster, I take that as a compliment.

Point is, Jaxon Roberts isn't trying to gloss over anything, which is what you claim. What he has done in a series of posts is elucidate what happened socially and culturally here in the US during the Vietnam years, which is much more than you have done.

jsobecky, you're just throwing around "terrorist" without context. You say the word and you expect people to abide by your singular, shallow meaning. You just keep on repeating the word in an effort to demonize someone who has arguably made substantial contributions that will benefit America's future.

I'm sure that there are many people who would prefer that Ayers was some shifty falling down drunk who talks to himself in public libraries. That he has actually become someone who at least a major American city and university value, really flies in the face of the narrow, one dimensional villains likely to turn up on a show like FOX's "24".

And the "Appeal to Pity" fallacy that you've used, the one about JaxonRoberts convincing naive young people? Just can it.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


What's sad is that you spent all that time fighting the establishment, and now you are the establishment. I don't know what happened to our generation. We went from liberal free thinkers to fundamental conservative drones, becoming exactly what we stood against. Well, most of us that is. The fact that now you throw the militant radicals of the 60's who were trying to make America better, even if their tactics were fundamentally wrong, in with Osama and his gang who want to bring about our demise is truly sad. Face it, at some point along the way, you sold out to the Corporatacracy, and to use one of our terms from back then: That's not Groovy, man!



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 



Originally posted by Areal51
reply to post by jsobecky
 
Right, right. Sad I didn't give you one? And being called a youngster, I take that as a compliment.


I don't need your stars, Area51.
Believe me, I don't.


And what makes you think I was referring to you? Kinda conceited, are you?



Point is, Jaxon Roberts isn't trying to gloss over anything, which is what you claim. What he has done in a series of posts is elucidate what happened socially and culturally here in the US during the Vietnam years, which is much more than you have done.


He's putting lipstick on a pig. But it's still a pig.



You just keep on repeating the word in an effort to demonize someone who has arguably made substantial contributions that will benefit America's future.


"Substantial contributions"? Another one who defends terrorist domestic bombings, I see.



And the "Appeal to Pity" fallacy that you've used, the one about JaxonRoberts convincing naive young people? Just can it.



"Can it"? You're a riot, Area51.





posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
He's putting lipstick on a pig. But it's still a pig.


Don't talk about Palin that way. It's sexist and rude!



[edit on 10-10-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Still don't get how Palin can tell known terrorists to keep up the good work as her husband works with said terrorists. Yet Obama is slammed as a terrorist because... He worked on a conservative Charity board ran by people who were placed by Ronald Reagan. So either RR is an evil terrorist lover as is Obama, or its BS.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Alright everyone. Lets chill out a little bit.

I'd would hate to see some penalties incurred on an otherwise reasonable discussion.



posted on Oct, 10 2008 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Areal51
 


Not choosing sides or anything, but I was impressed to see someone point out the Appeal To Pity Fallacy.

It's a classic one. There are so many good ones to choose from. I think my favorite is:

Begging the Claim

The most popular ones on this board seem to be Ad hominem, Red Herring, and Moral Equivalence. The last one especially.

In fact, this entire thread is a "Moral Equivalence Fallacy".

"Ayers did bad things in the 60s. Obama has been involved with Ayers. Obama supports terrorists."

It's actually Circular Logic and Moral Equivalence all in one wrapping. Pretty effective at changing uninformed people's minds.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Ok, can we please leave the pig out of this!




She's a little touchy about it!

(this is meant to lighten things up a little because it's getting a little heated in here!)



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Hey! I know her!


You and I have different outlooks on what tactics are allowable to achieve a point or make a statement. That is as it is. But thanks for your efforts to lighten it up a bit.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:41 AM
link   

The New York Times hardly ever wrong?
Go get em' Palin, I'm sure she was being sarcastic!


Go get 'em you! The three lol's in a row prove your point beyond a shadow of an acceptable SAT score to run the country.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
As yet, I have not seen Sen. Joe Biden being such an 'attack dog',

So what? Traditionally that has been the VP candidates roll. If Biden decides not to follow that - it's his choice. Frankly, I think he's not sure how to behave. Running against a woman and all. It could be viewed as sexist, etc etc if he attacks a woman.


let's take a moment to realize that 'President' Bush had,

Why? What's that got to do with Obama palling around with terrorists?


Allow me to ask ya', as a 'Joe six-pack to anotha'.....I could try ta , well, speak as a fella....one ta another....! (insert "wink" here).

I'm tell'n my husband that you are winking at me!

I suppose you could call me Josephine six-pack, but I can't drink anymore (kidney stones).


we cannot simply be fooled by a former Miss Alaska, just because she's beautiful. Have you not seen her Husband?? He has a Goatee!!!!!

I'm not a lesbian and therefore I am not 'fooled' by her, or I'm not falling for her, because of her looks. She looks professional to me. Nothing more. As for her husband's goatee ... I hadn't noticed but now that you mention it, I think it's rather handsome.


We do NOT vote based on appearance.....we VOTE based on what we think our candidate will do for us.

Absolutely. That's why I'm voting Baldwin/Constitution Pary.
It's the only vote I can make with a clear conscience.
Mccain and Obama ....



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
FlyersFan, I just want you to know I completely respect your choice to throw your vote away.

Especially, given the fact you used three emoticons in your last post.

No. Actually, because of that.



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by SnowCone
 


FlyersFan will rick roll you for that.

Honestly, though. I think you need to watch the South Park episode that talks about how every vote is important, no matter who you vote for.

Check it out:

Vote or Die



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by SnowCone
 


FlyersFan will rick roll you for that.


FlyersFan might as well vote for Rick Astley as that nonsense.

Allow me to translate for the voting impaired lacking political dialogue skills with emoticon fetishism:




posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
FlyersFan will rick roll you for that.

Yes. I'm a bitter old woman, of Irish heritage, and I cling to my guns and my religion. All the gutter-gruffness I learned in the Army comes pouring out with my Irish temperment. My poor health makes me even more cranky.


I'll take it easy on ya' SnowCone because you are new and because you said you 'respect my choice'. (also because I looove blue raspberry snocones!)


Originally posted by SnowCone
FlyersFan, I just want you to know I completely respect your choice to throw your vote away.


I'm not throwing my vote away. Just the opposite in fact.
I'm not just voting 'no to all the above'. I'm making a statement.
I'm also actually voting for someone who I agree with on most issues.
I'm also actually voting for someone who doesn't have all the vile baggage that BOTH Obama and McCain have.

I have been a registered republican and a registered democrat. As soon as this election is done I'm checking into changing to either independent or Constitution Party. Neither the dems or the republicans are doing what is right for this country. Neither party has the true spirit of America anymore. As far as I'm concerned, my vote for the Constitution Party is a vote for the America I want to keep.

You, snowcone, are still free to disagree. You are free to disagree because SOME part of the real America is still here - for now. I honestly dont' see it being here much longer if we stay on this path. Enjoy your freedom and liberty while you have it. I fear it will be gone soon.

(that wasn't so bad, was it?
)

edited to add -

Originally posted by SnowCone
FlyersFan might as well vote for Rick Astley as that nonsense.

1 - Never heard of him.
2 - I gave you ONE break. That's all you get.


[edit on 10/11/2008 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
(that wasn't so bad, was it?
)


Not at all Darlin'


Originally posted by FlyersFanedited to add -

Originally posted by SnowCone
FlyersFan might as well vote for Rick Astley as that nonsense.

1 - Never heard of him.
2 - I gave you ONE break. That's all you get.


Muah. I've seen "Snapped."




top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join