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.

 

Sarah Palin gets over 1,070 Invitations ! OMG !

page: 10
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 





David are you a socialist now?


Yes I'm now a socialist!!! Didn't you see all of my posts promoting it? JSO finally figured me out!

No wait...I'm not a socialist...I'm a communist/fascist and I want to be dictator of the whole world. That's it! For real!




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's a boldfaced LIE. You probably got that crap from USA Today or the Daily Kos.

But it is a LIE and you know it.


And if you keep telling yourself that, it might actually come true.

www.frontiersman.com...

Third of the page down. Wasilla police chief Charlie Fannon is actually quoted. The city of Wasilla, under the direction of Palin's budget approval, and executed by the man she hand picked to be police chief, did indeed charge rape victims for their rape kits.

Former chief, Irl Stambaugh, did not charge rape victims for their rape kits during his tenure. He was then fired by Palin for not agreeing with her policies. She hired Fannon. She had to sign off on the city budget, in which she removed the money that Stambaugh had previously line item-ed to cover the costs. Fannon then enacted her policies as chief of police, charging rape victims.

This was an act so heinous, that the Alaska passed a bill in 2000, outlawing the practice, specifically targeting Wasilla, because they wouldn't stop. Not under pressure, and not out of simple common decency. Even more disturbing when you learn that Alaska has two and a half times more than the national average for reported rapes. 75 reported rapes per every 100,000 Alaskans. The highest in the country.

So no, it's not a lie.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by nunya13
 



She's against ALL abortion


No she isn't.

You're beginning to use the same 'logic' David does. Mixed with lies.


Palin refuses to support abortion in cases of rape and incest though.

Which is probably more vile than anything else.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by jsobecky
 





You want to know how Sarah Palin stands on the issues? Go ask her. Or do some independent research. I promise I won't ask you to defend Obama anymore.


I want to KNOW WHAT YOU KNOW. If you think so highly of her...it should be no problem for you. Yet....after 9 pages of ridiculous nonsense...YOU'VE YET TO DO IT.


How does it feel to want?


What I know isn't important. I've told you where I agree with her. You seem to think that exploring stateside for new energy isn't important..."won't save the world", in your words.

I've pointed out where she would protect a viable fetus that survived abortion. Something you seem to think is trivial and that you object to.

And you want me to give you more fuel for your liberal fire? Forget it. This thread isn't about me.

I've pointed out where you and several others have LIED about her here. That should be enough for you to ruminate on for awhile.

That's what I know.



I'm a liberal?

For cripes sakes man. And yeah...I defend Obama constantly.

I ask anyone who believes this...or starred it...to look at my former threads and posts.

JSO...you'd think after almost a full year of seeing you on these boards...and you reading my posts...that YOU"D KNOW WHERE I STAND.

Who are you? Do you believe in anything?


I don't think *you* know who you are. You jump in here and attack Sarah Palin because she isn't an ideal presidential candidate.

Nobody is chasing that straw man argument but you.

You offer no facts, only character assassinations.

What's up with that?

You have your reasons for attacking her and defending Obama. That's your choice. But don't spread lies and expect them to go unchallenged just because you want to appear to be all things to all men.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by brimstone735
 





Palin refuses to support abortion in cases of rape and incest though. Which is probably more vile than anything else.


Stop with the LIES!!!

You're an evil Fascist Commie. You want to burn all children.

I bet you don't see your reflection in the mirror!


That's sarcasm btw.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by brimstone735
 




Palin refuses to support abortion in cases of rape and incest though.

Which is probably more vile than anything else.


I couldn't tell; the video was cut off just as she was explaining herself.

Besides, it's not any more vile that killing a viable fetus that has survived abortion. Something Obama supports.

Or not any more vile than abortion for convenience, or regret.

And it doesn't change the fact that a lie was told about her position on abortion.

And we are are allowed to have our own opinions on abortion, aren't we? Why castigate her for hers, simply because she disagrees with you and Obama?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Why castigate her for hers, simply because she disagrees with you and Obama?


At least you've come to terms with your tacit approval of rapists' rights. Yes, you are indeed giving credence and license to the solemn right of a rapist to chose the mother of his child.

So, you know, good luck with that.

The rest of us? Well, we get a little particular down in the lower 48 about giving rapists rights now, and punishing women for having the terrible misfortune of being raped. Or being the victims of incest.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And we are are allowed to have our own opinions on abortion, aren't we? Why castigate her for hers, simply because she disagrees with you and Obama?


Her personal views as a private citizen are irrelevant and inconsequential.
HOWEVER, when and if she re-enters the political arena and runs for office, her views are exposed to legitimate scrutiny.

As I see it, your defense of her is only worthy as long as she maintains common citizen status. After that IT IS OUR BUSINESS to question the views of potential leaders.

So which is she? You can't have it both ways. It appears to me there are political ambitions.

www.palin4pres2012.com...

www.sarah-palin.com...

www.conservatives4palin.com...




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


If Palin runs and wins the republican primary in '12 then we can all look forward to another Obama term. YAY!!



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   


She can make millions of dollars while risking nothing. She has a *huge* untapped audience out there, just waiting to hear her tear Obama a new a*hole.



Sounds as if you just want her to use her "pitbull with lipstick" personality to stick it to the party you obviously oppose. It would not matter which candidate from the left had been elected it would be the same.

I think I see now that the right is just using Sarah as some sort of thorn in the the side of Dems because they are still bitter they lost.

And Sarah is obviously cashing in on that fact.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by elaine
 


Sarah Palin is on the road to the White House.
The train has already left the station.
Team Obama is in disarray.
Pelosi will just make it worse with her nonsense.
Right now I'm wondering who the next Republican Speaker of House
will be 2010? I like Jim Sensenbrenner . I just need Sarah to put in
a good word for him.
Suddenly, our future looks very bright.
Now we have real hope and change.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Uniceft17
 



If Palin runs and wins the republican primary in '12 then we can all look forward to another Obama term. YAY!!

Good point! Same-o, same-o, "pretty" much!
Except, of course we will have many more wars!
(probably with putin since we can see him rear his head from alaska!)

This time good ol nukes will probably be used also. Wheee!
Good luck peeps, we're gonna need it!
Especially at the rate we're going lately.
The pendulum will swing the other way(in 2012)and we'll all
get screwed again. Whats new?
In a democracy at least 49% lose every election.
The country still loses EVERYTIME, regardless.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by brimstone735
 



At least you've come to terms with your tacit approval of rapists' rights. Yes, you are indeed giving credence and license to the solemn right of a rapist to chose the mother of his child.


You know, before you spread crap like this, you might want to preface your post with the following:

BS Alert! Here comes a load of crap from brimstone735!

Show me where I approve of 'rapists' rights'.

Show me or be exposed for the liar and troll that you are.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



As I see it, your defense of her is only worthy as long as she maintains common citizen status. After that IT IS OUR BUSINESS to question the views of potential leaders.

So which is she? You can't have it both ways. It appears to me there are political ambitions.


I think you answered your own question. She is not officially a candidate. Until then....

And I do believe that she made it perfectly clear that she was expressing her own opinions about abortion. She said that she respects the choices that others make.

I don't remember her saying that she intends to make her opinions the law of the land, if she were back in office.

She did say that she thinks it is a states rights issue, which I agree with.

So all these straw men that are being created are pointless.

Here are a few facts on abortions in Alaska that y'all might want to chew on. It seems that AK is more conducive to offering abortions that the US as a whole:


• In 2005, there were 1,787 abortion providers in the United States. This represents a 2% decrease from 2000, when there were 1,819 abortion providers. 34% of these providers were hospitals, 21% were abortion clinics (clinics where more than half of all patient visits were for abortion), 24% were clinics where fewer than half of all visits were for abortion, and 21% were private physicians' offices. 69% of all abortions were provided at abortion clinics, 25% at other clinics, 5% at hospitals and 2% at private physicians' offices.

• In 2005, there were 9 abortion providers in Alaska. This represents a 29% increase from 2000, when there were 7 abortion providers.

• In 2005, 87% of U.S. counties had no abortion provider. 1/3 of American women lived in these counties, which meant they would have to travel outside their county to obtain an abortion. Of women obtaining abortions in 2005, nonhospital providers estimate that 25% traveled at least 50 miles, and 8% traveled more than 100 miles.

• In 2005, 81% of Alaska counties had no abortion provider. 23% of Alaska women lived in these counties. In the West census region, where Alaska is located, 18% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 5% traveled more than 100 miles.

• In Alaska, no metropolitan area lacks an abortion provider.

www.guttmacher.org...



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by elaine
 



Sounds as if you just want her to use her "pitbull with lipstick" personality to stick it to the party you obviously oppose. It would not matter which candidate from the left had been elected it would be the same.


You're close, but no cigar.

It's the policies of the liberals that I oppose and that I want to see fail.

-Higher taxes

-Larger gov't

-Nationalization of the means of production

-Decreased national and personal security (imposition of police state).

Those are just a few policies that I want to see fail. Liberals are currently identified as Democrats. So as a result, people like you take my distate for liberals as a personal affront. None intended.

I'm an independent. I voted for our Democratic governor in my state, and I'm glad he won. The previous Democratic governor was a disaster; I'm glad she is gone. She still continues to do her part to destroy the state in her new position as US Senator and Obama shill, however. That's my next goal - to get her tossed out of office.



[edit on 2-9-2009 by jsobecky]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by brimstone735
 


The ramblings of a small town police chief. Unfounded accusations and a complete distortion of the facts.

Show me one piece of evidence where Palin demanded that rape victims pay for their rape kits. Not some disgruntled police chief who whined because he had his budget cut.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Show me where I approve of 'rapists' rights'.

Show me or be exposed for the liar and troll that you are.


Here's the problem, in your defense of Sarah Palin, you likewise defend the horrible, horrible, horrible position of forcing the victim of rape and incest to carry their child to term. As a natural result of this defense, the rapist can choose his victim, and force that victim to carry his child. Without any redress, because in your defense, you also rob the state of an adequate solution to this terrible conundrum.

Under your defense, the rapist/father is allowed to choose, but the victim/mother is not. Hence, rapists' rights.

Now, I would like you to publicly denounce your own argument, and admit that both you, and Sarah Palin are totally and completely wrong. You're wrong, and that at the very least, women deserve to have the right to an abortion in cases of rape and incest.

But, I won't hold my breath. Also, before you start tossing around the troll label, I've been here just as long as you have.



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by brimstone735
 


The ramblings of a small town police chief. Unfounded accusations and a complete distortion of the facts.

Show me one piece of evidence where Palin demanded that rape victims pay for their rape kits. Not some disgruntled police chief who whined because he had his budget cut.


Did you even read the article? Or did you just sort of glance over it?

This was Palin's hand picked to choice to run the department. As mayor, she signed, and I mean literally, signed the budget. The state passed an entire law banning the practice, specifically because the city of Wasilla refused to comply with state requests to not charge.

Are you denying that Wasilla charged rape victim for rape kits? Because, that is a fact. That actually happened.

Or, are you denying that she knew that it was happening under her watch? That she was somehow ignorant of what her police chief was up to, signed the budget without reading it, and ignored the repeated phone calls from her Republican colleagues in the state government pleading with her to stop the practice. In which case, you would then be implying that Palin was negligent and in dereliction of her duties as mayor.

So, which is it?



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
With respect JSO. But in response to my post you responded:

Originally posted by jsobecky
She is not officially a candidate. Until then....


However in prior post, you wrote this to another poster:


Originally posted by jsobecky
You jump in here and attack Sarah Palin because she isn't an ideal presidential candidate.


You seem to be uncharacteristically contradicting yourself.


Just in case she is, here is some "flair" for your car:

Palin Bumper Stickers

If she isn't going to be a candidate, would that not dispel the myth as to why she prematurely resigned as Gov?

You CAN'T have it both ways and I refuse to be drug into your abortion debate.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Sep, 2 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
THE DEFINITION OF A PERSON IN DENIAL =


Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by elaine
 


Sarah Palin is on the road to the White House.
The train has already left the station.
Team Obama is in disarray.
Pelosi will just make it worse with her nonsense.
Right now I'm wondering who the next Republican Speaker of House
will be 2010? I like Jim Sensenbrenner . I just need Sarah to put in
a good word for him.
Suddenly, our future looks very bright.
Now we have real hope and change.


The train left alright, it departed Kookyboro, destination: Loserville.

That is just silly, you may want to reduce your medication dosage to 50%.

[edit on 2-9-2009 by kinda kurious]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join