Whoops: Palin advocates war with Iran, apparently misreading column

reply to post by endisnighe


Thank you for clarifying your point, and in such a nice way, too. I understand your argument about using the word war. I agree, it is more than semantics.

Again, thanks for clarifying without calling me an idiot......

Sarah Palin's a silly silly woman. Yesterday she advocated revolution and civil war in the US, today it's bomb Iran. She doesn't seem to comprehend the consequences of either of these, or anything particularly important, unless it describes her self-absorbed importance.

Why doesn't she just wish the Iranian people good luck in their fight against oppression. What does any military option whether defensive or offensive have to do with her!

Lets hope next time she goes hunting, the animals get their teeth into her and that's the last we'll hear of her.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by john124]

reply to post by john124


a good reason to stay away from her, stay really far away!

people are talking about the current POTUS getting us all killed. What if SHE was in office right now?

If she was, I am pretty sure the bomb shelter industry would boom.

Another left-wing fraud on ATS! I call HOAX.

This thread is either intentional deceit or an example of illiteracy.

Originally posted by whaaa
Whoops: Palin advocates war with Iran, apparently misreading column
rawstory.com

Another desperate, fearful attempt at deceit by Obama's faithful.

The OP and others have taken snippets of third-party's out-of-context "quotes" and added their own moronic spin to try to denigrate a conservative spokesperson.

Why are you ALL afraid of what Sarah Palin REALLY says?
Why do you grasp at straws based on your own or others' misleading take on a sentence out of a paragraph.

Here's what Palin really said on Fox News Sunday:

WALLACE: I know that three years is an eternity in politics. But how hard do you think President Obama will be to defeat in 2012? PALIN: It depends on a few things. Say he played — and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decided really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do.

But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years, because I think if the election were today I do not think Obama would be re-elected. But three years from now, things could change if — on the national security front.

WALLACE: Are you — but you're not suggesting that he would cynically play the war card...

PALIN: I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying if he did, things would dramatically change. If he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies, I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, "Well, maybe he's tougher than we think he's — than he is today," and there wouldn't be as much passion to make sure that he doesn't serve another four years.

WALLACE: But assuming...

PALIN: But today if the — if the election — he wouldn't win.

WALLACE: ... assuming that the — that he continues on the path that he's going on, and we don't have that rally around the flag...

PALIN: Then he's not going to win.

www.foxnews.com...


OH! That's what you are so afraid of! She's RIGHT!!!

Absent another convenient "crisis," Obama, your messiah, would LOSE a general election held today!

whaaa, kk, stl and others consistently display their mortal fear of honest expression and the reality of the failed promises of their chosen leader.

Keep following your tactics and keep diminishing what little credibility you have remaining. Your threads like this are worthless. A reflection of your ideology and your narcissist president.

What a joke!

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 9-2-2010 by jdub297]

reply to post by endisnighe


None of those are ACTUALLY political qualifications.

reply to post by seethelight


I BEG to differ.

1) Well at least she is NOT a LAWYER!
The The Original 13th Amendment to the Constitution!

2) And she also knows how to SHOOT!
I would trust a hunter over an Ivy League, Pseudo Intellectual, Community(Acorn/SEIU) organizer any day of the week.

3) She also knows how to field dress!
She can get down and dirty if necessary. Salt of the Earth type?

4) And no that dress does not come from Bloomingdales.
She should never have got the uber rich clothes the campaign hierarchy gave her.

Oh, and I just have to post this photo!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/84baef0f2505.jpg[/atsimg]

[edit on 2/10/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by endisnighe

 

None of those are ACTUALLY political qualifications.

What, exactly, is a "political qualification," and how is that relevant to this thread about misrepresenting what Sarah Palin said and meant in an interview that no one seems to have watched, heard, or read a transcript of?

Aren't most people today complaining about "politicians" generally? So, if someone has no "political qualifications," why isn't that an ADVANTAGE?

Many of Palin's critics seem to be scraping the bucket to find ANY criticism of her "qualifications" without regard to truth, history, or common sense!

Many of our most successful and revered leaders, and even Presidents, had "no political qualifications" before stepping into their roles.

And, as e i n has pointed out, the Constitution has no such "qualifications" for a candidate. There's a thread here that seems to advocate the position that one needn't even have to be English literate or civically aware!

Although I haven't been here long, I've never seen such hypocrisy on ATS until recently, with the desperate attempts to salvage or escape from the revelation of the naked "emperor" or the smearing of those who've pointed out that he has no clothes.

(Except, maybe, that of those who are trying to escape the rubble of the collapsing Anthropogenic Global Warming fund-raising house of cards.)

Stars to endisnighe.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Originally posted by whaaa

I wonder if exgov. Palin actually wants war to fulfill biblical prophesy and the interpretation of Revelations that most right wing fundamentalist usually believe? It never ceases to amaze me how politicians are so willing to send other peoples sons and daughters into war while theirs stay safe and sound in some highclass university.

And I wonder if you ever read or think before you post.

The Palin interview is a sound and reasoned indictment of the failings of the current administration and the bankruptcy of its "policies." If you had no fear, you would've posted the source rather than a biased third party's spin part of a sentence of a multi-paragraph answer to a question about Obama's chances of re-election, which are nil today, absent another newly minted "crisis" that he and his lackeys are primed to capitalize on.

As has been pointed out, she has nowhere advocated war, nor has she expressed any interpretation of Revelation.

You obviously are willing to ignore her son's service to suit your own purposes and further a misleading and false thread.

"It never ceases to amaze me," either, how so many on the left are frightened to death of legitimate criticism of their gods and doctrine.

Did you intentionally ignore the actual text of the interview, or are you just so eager to yourself capitalize on any perceived opportunity to exploit someone else's slander that you don't bother to look for source and substance?

It is truly sad that such outright falsehoods get any stars whatsoever. A true indictment of the ATS "scoring" system in which like-minded slanderers boost themselves into apparent "authority." What a joke.

Deny ignorance.

jw