It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No, Uniceft isn't just "talking a lot"...
He/she hits on two critical points.
1) Supporting unneccesary wars... which at one point were calculated to have cost the American tax payer 700 billion dollars. I'm not sure of the total now, as I have stopped paying attention. Lets just say it is a crap load.
2) She OPENLY STATED that she wanted to expand the powers of the Vice President. This is in direct contradiction with the objectives of a movement that is, at its core, conservative in Governmental scope.
She is, in her face, directly in contradiction to what the movement was founded on.
On the one hand it is nice to say you want to reign in spending. You can even argue that she did a good thing bringing money to her district to keep it out of federal coffers. However, the foul is to designate the LARGE SUM to a worthless cause.
I'm sure there were some roads in Anchorage that could have used repaving, rather than a dead-end bridge.
Asked why she supported the bridge, Palin's communications director Bill McAlister said, "It was never at the top of her priority list, and in fact the project isn't necessarily dead … there's still the potential for improved ferry service or even a bridge of a less costly design."
She changed her mind, he said, when "she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving, and that impression bothered her and she wants to change it. … I think that Sarah Palin is someone who has the courage to reevaluate situations as they developed."
1) As a Governing official, it is her job to see through the emotives of such an endeavour and to do what is best by her constituents fiscally AS WELL as morally.
2) I don't care WHAT she meant by expanding the Powers of the Vice President. Bigger Government is Bigger Government is Bigger Government. Honestly, considering the rest of her background I wouldn't be so dismissive of these calls that she made.
3) Yes, after requesting the money, she backtracked... after the deal was made. And she still used the money...
This entire argument is sorta' silly, really. You are arguing from a position that doesn't have any basis in reality. It will never happen. Know why? Because SHE knows I'm right.
What you think on the issue matters not.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Hey kiddo, fyi I'm a 100% red-blooded American male.
What exactly were the Tea Party protests about?
Palin supported the war. So did some of the Tea Party protestors. So what? It means nothing. The protests were not founded on objection to the war
Sez you. But that is only your opinion. Many would disagree with you, and would welcome her to the protests.
I just don't answer you because you don't say much worth responding to.
If you didn't know exactly what they were about how did you know they weren't founded on the war.
If you had bad enough judgement to vote for the war in Iraq, or support it back in the beggining then that should automatically disqualify you.
The tea party movement was based on Ron Paul's ideals, less government, less spending, end all the wars, strict constituionalist.
So your not going to address the fact that you still lied? That your brought up the popularity argument in the first place and then ignored me when I countinued to call you out on it? That you put words in my mouth? and that you deflect constantly?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Oh, I knew before I asked. I just wanted to see if he knew.
That would disqualify almost every member of congress.
No they weren't. In your case they were, because you're a fan of his, but they were not based on RP ideals.
Ron Paul donors outdid themselves Sunday, helping their candidate set a new record for online contributions in a 24-hour period. In a fundraising initiative set to coincide with the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the Republican congressman from Texas raised more than $6 million, surpassing the one-day $4.2 million haul the campaign recorded last month.
Paul’s libertarian views and opposition to the Iraq war have attracted a fervent grass-roots following, particularly online, but he has yet to translate that into mainstream appeal. That could change, however, as the campaign begins spending its bulging war chest in the early primary states.
It was hard to say when the turning point was, It may have been around the time that Paul stood up to Rudolph W. Giuliani. At a May debate, the former New York mayor interrupted a discourse by Paul on how the Republican Party had been led astray by an interventionist foreign policy that had, among other things, helped set the stage for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Giuliani, full of outrage, condemned the notion that "we invited the attack" and asked Paul to "withdraw that comment." The crowd roared, but Paul held firm as he explained "blowback": "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free," he said. "They come and they attack us because we're over there."
Likewise, the forms that the uprising have taken are too many to number. There are the coordinated online assaults on Internet polls and political reporters who dare slight Dr. Paul; the printing press in New Hampshire owned by a Paul supporter that has churned out tens of thousands of fliers to distribute around the country; the one-day "money bomb" that shattered a record by bringing in more than $4 million. And the blimp, emblazoned with Paul's name, that is being flown to Boston for another "money bomb" commemorating the Boston Tea Party today.
Nah, I'm good where I'm at.