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.

 

Bush-Cheney Require Loyalty Oath to Attend Rallies

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Yea, some people don't understand that their ideas aren't relevant when we are speaking in a country-wide context. I mean what they do is all well and good, but when they start requiring even their own friends to sign loyalty oaths, people will get upset.

Could you imagine giving your friends a loyalty oath to sign. "I _____ allow you to tell people that I am your friend." I mean think about it, that crap doesn't work or help anything except for selfish interests.




posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Yet again Bush isn't uniteing us. He's divideing us. Those who agree with him and those who don't.
He should just go down in American history as "The Great Divider" or something.



posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Loyalty pledges? Whats the point of having a campaign stop if your not going to try and communicate to everyone willing to attend and garner new votes?

Preaching to the choir never got more people into church and the same goes for this.



posted on Sep, 12 2004 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Honeslty, this doesn't surprise me at all. Divide and Conquer and all that. Pit democrats against republicans and republicans and democrats. People don't understand that it's possible for both parties to wrong.

If freedom were personified, they'd be in a hospital right now on life-support after being mauled by a pack of blue and red dogs. Let's hope they don't pull the plug.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 09:21 AM
link   
I don't think this was so much a loyalty oath as a marketing waiver. The last line is most important.
"In signing the above endorsement you are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."

Its virtually the same wording as when you win a radio promotion take part in a funded study etc.

Its not important that you actually support bush so much as you release the right to use your name as a bush supporter.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
"here's your free tuna steak dinner for two, but we need you to sign a waiver that say we can use your name in support of our netting practice that kills ocean mammals".

Duh



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
This 'sign a statement of loyalty' thing is either brand new
or a complete hoax.

I went to a Bush rally in Philadelphia about a month ago.

George Bush was there. None of us were asked to sign
anything.

I don't believe this 'sign a statement' thing. Not at all.



posted on Sep, 13 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Well, obviously Bill Clinton and these newspapers buy into it. It may not be happening everywhere, but it does appear to be happening.

As well, you will see some posts on the first page of members who have witnessed this.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Well, obviously Bill Clinton and these newspapers buy into it.


Newspapers are propaganda rags. I don't read them anymore.
Can't trust them. Bill Clinton? A man who doesn't know the meaning
of the word 'is' will buy into just about anything.


However, some here say they have seen this so all I can say is
that it must be something new, or something localized. I didn't
see anything like it in Philadelphia. I have friends who have seen
him (G.W.) at rallys elsewhere and they haven't had to sign anything.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 08:10 AM
link   
I once went to a Clinton speaking engagement and had to sign a statement that I would not disturb his speech. I think it was designed so he could make his points without having to hear or be disturbed. I did not think anything about it. Just good form not to disrupt someone speaking. My mom taught me manners.



posted on Sep, 14 2004 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrsdls
had to sign a statement that I would not disturb his speech.


That's different in a MAJOR way from a 'loyalty oath'.
We didn't have to sign any 'good manners' promise when
we saw G.W. last month. Interesting that you had to
sign one to see Bill Clinton though.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join