Former McCain Strategist Warns Against "Angry Mob", page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times
Topic started on 10-10-2008 @ 03:10 PM by pause4thought

Former McCain Strategist Warns Against "Angry Mob"


www.huffingtonpost.com
John Weaver, John McCain's former top strategist, says the Republican candidate is making both a moral and a a tactical mistake by letting abusive hecklers have free rein at rallies:

"People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Senator Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Senator McCain," Weaver said..."
(visit the link for the full news article)


reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 03:16 PM by DimensionalDetective
reply to post by pause4thought


I would say not only possible, but likely being orchestrated.

This is 9/11 / Iraq War II all over again. Coincidence that Military is now conducting ops for crowd control on U.S. soil? Not too hard to figure out why. This is all part of these evil control-freak's plan. Total wealth and power domination over the tax-slaves.



reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 03:35 PM by zlots331
I brought up similar concerns here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm curious how this whole thing plays out. If McCain is doing this at the urging of his handlers, he needs some new handlers. It's not only scary, it's disgusting.

And as the new slogan goes, "who is the real Barak Obama?". He's the one ahead and you're just looking desperate .


reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 04:01 PM by pause4thought
reply to post by Maxmars


Chilling. That's all I can say.

When you read about the rise of National Socialism you think "How could people have been so blind?"

I suppose one answer is that they allowed themselves to be blinded. It was convenient.


reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 04:05 PM by Vitchilo
This could be interesting.

On one side you have the nutjobs who think Obama is a terrorist, an evil muslim, a commie democrat who wants to take their guns... they are hardcore in their beliefs.

On the other side you have the nutjobs who think Obama is the saviour, who think that free speech isn't allowed if it's to critizise their great leader. It's also racist if you don't support him. And of course, you're an enemy of america, a supporter of the Bush evil regime, a neo-con, a fascist, if you don't support him.

So. Fundamentalists on both sides.

In the middle? Those who reject both candidates and want the return to the constitution and want to kick those puppets out of there.

Obama will win, this is a certainty. Those who are still in the republicans party are hardcore fanatics. A lot of those who support Obama believe in their core that McCain MUST NOT be allowed in the White House by any means.

This look like a recipe for disaster... civil war. Especially if Obama is assassinated.

This look totally staged when we know for a fact that both are puppets.

And to those Obama supporters, you're being mislead. He's the same BS as Pelosi. He's full of it. Even if he wasn't, his advisors are evil.

IMO, I would rather have McCain president as a lame duck and a real democratic congress who stick to their guns and block everything the republicans sends... When the Federal government does nothing, everyone is happy.

With a Obama presidency, you can have fascism because of his supporters who are well meaning but mislead. He also have the charism to push the NWO really far, just like Bush did in the first 6 years or so of his presidency.

[edit on 10-10-2008 by Vitchilo]


reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 04:14 PM by Maxmars
reply to post by pause4thought


I have never been to a 'political rally' myself. It's not in my nature to join personality cults or such, and these things give the appearance of being just that, people saying what people want to hear, and being acknowledged for doing so.

So I often find myself wondering, given the psychology of crowds and what not, what actually does one undergo, when your sitting there (or standing) at a rally, and you suddenly realize, that it's not exactly what you want it to be. I mean not everyone who goes to these things is a mindless drone. Statistically speaking, some people must attend these things and walk away saying to themselves, "Wait a minute, what was that, I'm not sure I can accept this." What happens to those people? Do they go back for the party's sake, or the particular politician celebrity they have chosen to bond themselves to? Do they 'walk away', or do they allow themselves to 'give in' to the event?


reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 04:14 PM by Ameneter
reply to post by Maxmars


So the Obama campaign is inciting violence at McCain's rallies to provoke his own assassination? Ridiculous. Obama only stands to lose if violence is incited, because McCain and his buddies control the guns.


reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 04:24 PM by Maxmars
Originally posted by Ameneter
reply to post by Maxmars


So the Obama campaign is inciting violence at McCain's rallies to provoke his own assassination? Ridiculous. Obama only stands to lose if violence is incited, because McCain and his buddies control the guns.


That IS ridiculous!

If you still attach ANY such action to the transient personalities in place you are well behind the curve. (And I know you're not.) It is not to ANYONE'S benefit to incite such an action... but it MIGHT be in 'SOMETHINGS' benefit to have that in the mix of our lives. I am trying to direct people expand the scope of their deliberations BEYOND which meat puppet will "save us" from {_______} insert 'evil' of your choice.

Is there a difference between the candidates? Yes, they are two different people, that's it. Each rocks in his own way and each sucks in his own way. It's been the same with every political show produced in the last 60 years... or more.


reply posted on 10-10-2008 @ 04:43 PM by pause4thought
Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by pause4thought


I have never been to a 'political rally' myself. It's not in my nature to join personality cults or such, and these things give the appearance of being just that, people saying what people want to hear, and being acknowledged for doing so.

So I often find myself wondering, given the psychology of crowds and what not, what actually does one undergo, when your sitting there (or standing) at a rally, and you suddenly realize, that it's not exactly what you want it to be. I mean not everyone who goes to these things is a mindless drone. Statistically speaking, some people must attend these things and walk away saying to themselves, "Wait a minute, what was that, I'm not sure I can accept this." What happens to those people? Do they go back for the party's sake, or the particular politician celebrity they have chosen to bond themselves to? Do they 'walk away', or do they allow themselves to 'give in' to the event?

You are asking a profound question. I believe the answer is by and large disconcerting:





It takes courage and deep moral fibre to stand against a tide of human folly.

(Mind you, I can't help wondering how many who allowed themselves to get whipped above in the above clip were alive 5 years later. Giving in didn't do them, or their country much good. The only outcome was all-round destruction.)



reply posted on 14-10-2008 @ 12:39 AM by GamerGal
reply to post by RRconservative


Yeah, because they have morals. They aren't going to do evil things even if they're paid. Unlike some people, like Karl Rove and Sarah Palin.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^