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.

 

McCain aide: Palin 'going rogue'

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
If McCain loses he would have lost because he gave up his beliefs and sold his soul to the devil. Palin is one of the pay-offs to get elected and so is the smear campaign.

Also there are republicans who support Palin more than McCain which is quite frankly absurd. She is just no equal to McCain in any field. She doesnt have the brains, the real-politic nor the wisdom. Its really astounding that people can be so bereft of rational thought when they are making one of the most important decisions that our founding fathers have left to them.

I supported McCain to win the Republican primary as he was the most decent Republican and I think that resonated with people. Now he is this vile old man conducting a dog and Palin show in every town rabble rousing against Obama. He has become a mob leader for the hicks and yokels in the backwoods of America. What a sad state for a US senator with decades of standing to be reduced to ?

There was a time when the Republican party was known to represent the best and the brightest of American politics, but after W it went straight to hell.

I am sure in their hubris they have forgotten the very core ideals that made them appeal to the Average American. Today they are the mainly the preserve of the brainwashed and the backward as a sounding board for the same. I guess they need to go back to the grassroots and rediscover themselves and their cause.




posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dreams n chains
Need we be reminded that Palin has an 80 percent approval rating in Alaska? She knows the Constitution because she actually refers to it when making decisions and does not merely assume she knows it like most others.


What is all this fuss about Alaska ?? Alaska is a baren place where nobody wants to live if they can help it. Being the mayor of such a place is no great acheivement nor is it some symbol of administrative prowess.

Even Guliani has a more credible executive experience than her "governorship" in Alaska!



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:34 AM
link   
It was 80% right after they got their free money. Ask them now, doubt it will even break 40%. And this is great Palin's blaming McCain for their loss, McCain is blaming Palin, and the election hasn't even been held yet!



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I got lost trying to read through all the rhetoric.

'Is' she 'going rogue'?

I don't think so. I think she is doing exactly what Sarah Palin does, and if the McCain campaign had properly vetted her, they would have known.

They would have seen how she treated her former mentor when she ran against him for Mayor of Wasilla. They would have seen how she ran for Governor against the man who nominated her to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she gained all the 'supposed' energy experience she has.

Why would the McCain campaign call her behavior 'going rogue' if her behavior is in line with what she has done all her career? All she has ever done is look out for herself, at the expense of her political allies.

If you don't believe me, look it up yourself.
It is a shame that McCain doesn't know how to use a computer, it is all there on her Wikipedia page...

DocMoreau



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


I support Palin more than I support McCain. Why? Because she is not a wolf in sheep's clothing. She will tell it like it is, and not worry about what anyone or anything says about it.

To me, it seems like she would uphold our founding documents, instead of ripping them to shreds.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I don't see how they thought that they could control her in the first place. If McCain wins he is going to have a time with her.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by IAF101
 


I support Palin more than I support McCain. Why? Because she is not a wolf in sheep's clothing. She will tell it like it is, and not worry about what anyone or anything says about it.

To me, it seems like she would uphold our founding documents, instead of ripping them to shreds.


Our Founding fathers hoped that the best and the brightest would lead us. And I believe that even the founder of the Republican party, Abe Lincoln, has the same idea for his party. I doubt his or our founding fathers ever intentioned a hockey mom to run this 'grand experiment' of theirs.

As to telling it like it is, are we talking about the same "Straight talk express" here ? Also, saying what its on your mind and damning the consequences is simply not a virtue. It's irresponsible and that is not something the President of America can afford.

Sarah Palin is NOT a leader of people, she never was and can never be with her present persona. She is a figurehead, a celebrity that serves more as a rallying point than any actual stewardship. She cant even control the crowds at her "rallies", how can we expect her to lead a nation ?



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAF101

Originally posted by xxpigxx
reply to post by IAF101
 


I support Palin more than I support McCain. Why? Because she is not a wolf in sheep's clothing. She will tell it like it is, and not worry about what anyone or anything says about it.

To me, it seems like she would uphold our founding documents, instead of ripping them to shreds.


Our Founding fathers hoped that the best and the brightest would lead us. And I believe that even the founder of the Republican party, Abe Lincoln, has the same idea for his party. I doubt his or our founding fathers ever intentioned a hockey mom to run this 'grand experiment' of theirs.

As to telling it like it is, are we talking about the same "Straight talk express" here ? Also, saying what its on your mind and damning the consequences is simply not a virtue. It's irresponsible and that is not something the President of America can afford.

Sarah Palin is NOT a leader of people, she never was and can never be with her present persona. She is a figurehead, a celebrity that serves more as a rallying point than any actual stewardship. She cant even control the crowds at her "rallies", how can we expect her to lead a nation ?


Where in the papers does it say that they wanted the best and the brightest?

They don't. They want us to decide who we want to lead. Alot of our presidents did not even have a college education . . . did that make them bad presidents?

Think about why she is a "celebrity, figurehead, etc." The people agree with her.

She speaks her mind. The people want someone who is not afraid to do that, instead of all the political doublespeak.

The people want someone who is real. Not an image that says whatever the polls dictate to get into the Whitehouse.

*The people means her supporters



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
*The people means her supporters


Ahhh okay! I was going to say....



The truth of the matter is that she should very much be inline with McCain because she is his Vice President candidate. That's what matters, and that's what is important right now.

[edit on 28-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
This is really getting amusing. I think it is just part of the blame game. And Palin is pretty easy to blame, considering how bad she is doing in the polls. She has shifted more votes away from McCain than Bush, is that what they are saying now? If that is true this news directly coincided with the sources in the campaign that began attacking her. They couldn't just lose could they? They’re going to make sure they all crash and burn as well, and they’ll possibly take Palin’s career down with them.



[edit on 28-10-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Where in the papers does it say that they wanted the best and the brightest?

They don't. They want us to decide who we want to lead. Alot of our presidents did not even have a college education . . . did that make them bad presidents?


Papers ? The Constitution lays out the "requirements". And it is clear from the requirements that the Founding fathers in their wisdom knew that the office of the President was an important one and people elected to high office had to be 'high functioning' as well and thus stipulated that a minimum age of 35 was a requirement. They hoped that such an age would bring with it some wisdom but just in case limited the tenure of the President.

All the great presidents of this country have been people who were some of the brightest people of their time . George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, Ronald Regan. These are the president we Americans today remember because they were great. All the great Presidents were college graduates and/or highly literate for their time. The numerous others who took office were not so special because they did not make any positive contributions to their time and were not the "best and the brightest" of their time. Same goes for Palin.


Originally posted by xxpigxx
Think about why she is a "celebrity, figurehead, etc." The people agree with her.

She speaks her mind. The people want someone who is not afraid to do that, instead of all the political doublespeak.

^^That is absolute rubbish. Paris Hilton and Britney Spears speak their mind as well. They are bigger celebrities than her and they look a hecka'va lot better as well. They may be smarter than Palin as well but nobody in their right mind would want them to lead America. Simply because they are celebrities and not "leaders" .
Speaking one's mind all the time is a sign of idiocy not wisdom or courage. There is a Chinese proverb which goes; "The fool chatters while the wise man listens".


Originally posted by xxpigxx
The people want someone who is real. Not an image that says whatever the polls dictate to get into the Whitehouse.

*The people means her supporters

How is anybody who's every speech, interview and message is carefully scripted ever be considered as "real " ? Are most Americans air head hockey moms ?
Most of her supporters support her because she is a reflection of their inadequacies. They feel victimized when people attack her for being inadequate and under qualified and thus their defense.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


Grant? Jackson? Didn't Jackson do several death marches on the Indians to force them off their land? And Grant, genius general, bad president last I read. Lots of corruption in his Administration. Although it wasn't him but his cabinet. Anyways, I do want the best but being college educated doesn't mean someone is the best. The show Malcom in the Middle Malcom is a genius, and in the last episode offered a seven figure job with some big corporation but his parents say no. He asks why, they said, roughly "We have plans for you. You will become president and not only president but the greatest ever because you know what it is like to be poor. You know what it is like to scrape by and sometimes go cold or hungry." And its like wow, that's true. Most presidents never suffered, never struggles. Short of Generals like Washington, Grant, Eisenhower who suffered Valley Forge, hellish battles, marching across deserts, they are silver spoon babies. McCain's family been taken care of by the government for generations with Admirals and Captains and other rankings. Obama... well, had a weird life. Born in Hawaii, half black and half white during the time segregation was at a boiling point. But now... a bit of a silver spoon.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GamerGal
Grant? Jackson? Didn't Jackson do several death marches on the Indians to force them off their land? And Grant, genius general, bad president last I read. Lots of corruption in his Administration. Although it wasn't him but his cabinet.

Under Jackson what they instituted was called "Indian Removal". Basically they gave the Indians an option of either regularizing and adopting the local laws of the state or move to different settlements that have been alloted to them. It wasnt a "death march " as you say. A Death march is what the Nazi made the Jews do in Poland and Germany as the Allies advanced on them. Essentially Jackson was responsible for defining the state of Indian affairs in America for generations to come.
As for Grant, yes there was some corruption but what he is most remembered for is his contribution to the Reconstruction after the Civil War. Also he instituted many institutions in the US which to this day play a prominent role in the union like the Dept of Justice, etc. Also, his personal story was an inspiration to all Americans.


Originally posted by GamerGal Most presidents never suffered, never struggles. Short of Generals like Washington, Grant, Eisenhower who suffered Valley Forge, hellish battles, marching across deserts, they are silver spoon babies. McCain's family been taken care of by the government for generations with Admirals and Captains and other rankings. Obama... well, had a weird life. Born in Hawaii, half black and half white during the time segregation was at a boiling point. But now... a bit of a silver spoon.

Well that is poor representation of not only Americans but American presidents as well. People like Abe Lincoln, Ronald Regan, etc all didnt jump of the money train .They worked their way into the position. Most of the US presidents either did it through entrepreneurship or through the military. Even JFK who was as you would call him a "silver spoon" kid had his fare share of troubles, including his service in the military being stranded and left for dead. Not to mention his personal struggle with adrenal gland disorder.
Great people shine through, doesnt matter if they are born with a silver spoon in their mouth or are salt of the earth types. A college education is not a litmus test of wisdom or greatness but rather a bare requisite of competency, especially for somebody trying to take office of the most powerful position in the world. Not all college grads are great leaders but all great leaders are usually highly literate. This is true anywhere in the world, be it Gandhi or Washington.

Barak Obama went to Columbia and Harvard. He cant have been some farmer's son to have afforded an education in those institutions.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join