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.

 

Gov. Sarah Palin Quotes President Ronald Reagan !

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Forget the President Obama speech.
Gov. Sarah Palin has said it all in her Facebook post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the leadership we have been looking for.
Gov. Sarah Palin Facebook Post




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
"Blood libel".
Love her/hate her, the lady has class.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I wonder who wrote that. It was very good.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Eurisko2012
 


what does it say?

(I cant get on facebook from where I am)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wonder who wrote that. It was very good.


Sarah Palin wrote it. Why wouldn't she. Or is this another attempt to smear her through her writing abilities?

Wonder how many speeches Obama wrote himself?
*cough*



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I wondered who wrote it as well. The speech writer is obviously talented.

Nice statement and good political move.

But, those who hate her, will still hate her. Those who like her, will still like her. And those in the middle will still likely stay in the middle.
edit on 12-1-2011 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wonder who wrote that. It was very good.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama is reading it right now.
Uh oh! How do i top this ?

He should go back to Hawaii and take another vacation.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Monkeygod333
 


Here's he transcript.

Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.



I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.



Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.



There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.



Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.



President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.



The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.



Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.



There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.



As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.



No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.



Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.



It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.



Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.



America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.



- Sarah Palin



.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Most assuredly, she did not write that herself. The style is too articulate.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
"Blood libel" is a term used by anti-semitics to suggest Jews murder children to use their blood for religious festivals. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, many anti-Jewish groups and publications used the term "blood libel" to incite racial hatred.

wiki blood libel

Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish, to make matters worse.

....This is going to go down well
edit on 12-1-2011 by infinite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
"Blood libel".
Love her/hate her, the lady has class.


BLOOD LIBEL is a classic anti semitic term... every jew hears it as an acusation that their passover rites require the blood of an innocent child...

either palin is just an unaware fool.. or she LAUNCHING a verbal projectile into a situation that before she only HAD CROSSHAIRS ON.

at best she is whining about how she is being slandered. even before the 9 year old can be put to rest.
at worst she is revealing that the jewish LOUGHNER was recruited and handled and that this whole ASSASINATION and SACRIFICE of a child has some deeper occult zionist agenda



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
"Blood libel" is a term used by anti-semitics to suggest Jews murder child to use their blood for religious festivals. In the late 19th and early 20th Century, many anti-Jewish groups and publications used the term "blood libel" to incite racial hatred.

wiki blood libel

Gabrielle Giffords is Jewish, to make matters worse.

....This is going to go down well.
edit on 12-1-2011 by infinite because: (no reason given)


She's accusing the media of using "blood libel". And rightly so.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by fredgbear
 


why couldnt she write that?

If most people heard me talk, they would probably think I was uneducated , or just some country bumpkin.

I love the stigmas people attach to others intelligence, thinking the are ignorant or ill informed because of where they are from or how they talk, kind of hypocritic if you ask me.

When i sit down to write something that is of great importance, im very very good at articulating my thoughts

Why should she be any different?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


So, it is right for her to use an anti-semitic term to describe the conduct of the media? If it is "rightly so" then you must feel the media is Jewish and responsible for killing children for religious means. There is no other context this word can be used in.

(Again) Palin has played directly into the hands of her critics.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wonder who wrote that. It was very good.


Sarah Palin wrote it. Why wouldn't she. Or is this another attempt to smear her through her writing abilities?

Wonder how many speeches Obama wrote himself?
*cough*


I think Gov. Sarah Palin has a Bachelors Degree in Communications with an emphasis in journalism
from the University of Idaho.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
So she spent about 25% on this "speech" on talking about the tragedy and the victims.

And then the other 75% trying to defend her actions.


Exactly how is this a good "speech"??? Sounds more like an opening statement in a defense case.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Honestly, I get so tired of the notion that people or classes of people can "own" certain words or phrases.

I think 'blood libel' in this context describes EXACTLY what took place with the assignment of blame to Palin.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


Grotesquely, she has managed to turn this whole tragic events into another "it's all about me!" scenario. I even agreed with Glenn Beck - you cannot blame political rhteroic and ignore violence in video games and movies.

Sarah Palin is a self centered narcissist, who should've stayed silent and not start throwing around ant-semitic terms, without understanding the historic hatred and odious propaganda behind it.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Articulate, and well spoken/written. Thanks for linking it.

She's spot on. The event was reprehensible. The aftermath of politicians, and pundits, using it to score political capital is, perhaps, even more so.

I'm rapidly growing sick and tired of it. ...and I'm not even being deluged by it from my TV, as I've not had TV for some time now. I can only imagine how tired, and angry, I'd be of it all...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join