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.

 

Newspaper Ad Accuses Obama And Dems Of Christian Murder Conspiracy

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Autumnal
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Pfffffffffft. Ridiculous Left Wing lunacy again. I just can't believe....wait. Are you seriously using this article to lash out at the left? So if the left does something wrong and redstate.com criticizes it, redstate is the asshat, right?


I am not the "Lasher".... The stories authors are, and so are the designers of the ad in that newspaper to a point.


So, are people to assume that you would agree with their final statement ?


This ad shows how vicious the right-wing intends to become as Election Day approaches. Ads like this should never appear in a newspaper and The Daily Advertiser should be boycotted by level-headed citizens until it stops giving crazy right-wing extremists a platform from which to preach their hate and scare the American people.


Many think this would satisfy the hungriest of the wildest blood vessel bursting shouters that would love to have it all their way, and only their way.

I'm glad the 1st Amendment is still around, although some Ultra Fanatical Liberals would love to see it go away as long it's repeal would only apply to everybody else but them !

Plus that, the article seems to shift the focus onto the Agenda-21 part.
They went after that with a more forceful and vengeful way.




posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   


And the 93% of Republicans could have voted against it,,, they didn't. The Democratic congressmen DID
reply to post by Beanskinner
 


So why didn't the Democratic Pres veto it?

Could it be so that the Dems could say "oh but we tried" and people would still by into the partisan system?

Seems like it.

I am in the most liberal Dem state you could possibly be in, I was "raised" in a democrats house if you would, but you know what happened?

I grew up, I became an adult and saw that NO issue is as simple as two sides, and that I am an individual and no party matched what I believe.

I am a Dem on some issues and a Rep on others, and still others I disagree with both parties...

I wasn't a conspiracy person until I started looking into the founding books of some of these "secret" clubs that members to both parties belong to.

Things that said in a Nuclear age you needed to Fool the population with a Two party system so that the over all goal could not be changed by the whims of people coming in and out of office...

But thats another topic entirely.

You keep playing the partisanship violin as this Titanic sinks though...



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
If you knew anything about christianity you wouldn't be using these strawman arguements.
These "preachers" aren't christians but don't let that stop you from using it as a war cry.
The blind leading the blind!
Most preachers you will see on tv are deceivers and you will know them by their fruits. Just observe their mannerisms and quit playing stupid

edit on 2-6-2012 by HamrHeed because: added comment



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
19. Trans-boundary environmental impacts should not be hidden.
20. Equality of Genders. Include women. (Don't get me wrong, there shouldn't be inequality, but when the goal is a better environment, this may not be the best place for this.)
21. Mobilize the next generation in this.
22. Pay attention to "Native Practices" --they're conversational by practice. (Stereotype. Not always the case.)
23. Individual rights in an oppressed society will be protected.
24. Make a "sacred cow" out of environmentally friendly works during war. (Instead of WMDs to vouch for need to destroy, shouldn't shut down an environmentally friendly ammunitions factory, and shouldn't burn crops to the ground in war. That's going to go over well.)
25.

Peace, development and environmental protection are interdependent and indivisible.

26. Resolve Environmental Disputes Peaceably, through UN charter. (Well, there goes Whale Wars.)
27. In good faith, work together.
Ends by pg. 7.

(The Preamble, as used earlier. Ends pg. 13.)

Social and Economic Dimensions:

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION TO ACCELERATE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND RELATED DOMESTIC POLICIES

2.1: All should cooperate to improve interdependence of states, through peaceable means. (Interdependence of Banking put us into this last global mess. Keep that in mind.)

2.2:

The reactivation and acceleration of development requires both a dynamic and a supportive international economic environment and determined policies at the national level. It will be frustrated in the absence of either of these requirements. A supportive external economic environment is crucial. [...] Neither will it gather momentum if the developing countries are weighted down by external indebtedness, if development finance is inadequate, if barriers restrict access to markets and if commodity prices and the terms of trade of developing countries remain depressed. The record of the 1980s was essentially negative on each of these counts and needs to be reversed. [...] International cooperation in this area should be designed to complement and support-not to diminish or subsume - sound domestic economic policies, in both developed and developing countries, if global progress towards sustainable development is to be achieved.
Problem for the US is that the Tariffs that were still in place in the '80s, here, actually did ensure that Made in America was not a problem for us. China still pumps out good at too cheap a level to make it easy to sustain manufacturing here, without a lot of modifications. So, this part of it failed. Wasn't it under Clinton that the Tariffs removed? Remember, this thing was written in the early 90s about the 80s, at the least. Things like getting Africans back into farming are a very recent idea.

2.3: Trade Liberalization: does this mean "remove Tariffs"?, trade& environment mutually supportive. Lend aide to developing countries and deal with international debt, and MACROECONOMICS (environmentally friendly ones). (They taught ME at the Jr High level. I learned to be a corrupt, bumbling governmental employee (7th grade). Baby brother learned how to create a black market, and use my governmental position against people who would rat on him (4th grade). This was back in '93 school year? First taste of laws not working due to individuals manipulating the system. Without the teachers constantly interfering, we'd have reenacted The Lord of the Flies within the first month. But the monopoly money was pretty--wish I still had a copy.)

2.4: Government policy by consensus with respect to environment & trade.

Promoting sustainable development through trade:

2.5: Basically, lower or remove tarriffs to make sure that outside goods from developing countries can come in, so we don't discriminate the likes of 1990s China. (Macroeconomics, again.)

2.6: Warning to be internally sound again.

2.7: Finally! Outright statement: REMOVE TARIFFS (check it), along with other economic impediments.

In particular, the achievement of this objective requires that there be a substantial and progressive reduction in the support and protection of agriculture--covering international regimes, market access and export subsidies--as well as of industry and other sectors, in order to avoid inflicting large losses on the more efficient producers, especially in producing countries.
Um, US: 1. the laws in place to protect farms are actually geared towards less food production, 2. removal of these laws would do exactly the opposite of what was worried about here: to protect those who grow more? Those who grow more would have a chance to sustain their farm, economically, while those who don't produce as much would sell out to a big chain grower. This makes no sense in the US. Irrelevant of the stance we take about supporting farms. But the point is to limit farm growth to ensure environmental protection.

At 2.8, continue later.
edit on 2-6-2012 by CynicalDrivel because: Forgot the "["quote"]"



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   


If you knew anything about christianity you wouldn't be using these strawman arguements. These "preachers" aren't christians but don't let that stop you from using it as a war cry. The blind leading the blind! Most preachers you will see on tv are deceivers and you will know them by their fruits. Just observe their mannerisms and quit playing stupid
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


agreed, its all political theater from all sides so no one really gets anything done, all par the course.

all manipulation by the greedy to bilk the weak.

Every party has their "groups" they can call upon to play act, for the Rep its the fair right chiristian churchs that truly have no idea what Jesus really taught.

Same with the Left, Hollywood or the LBGT agenda groups charge in when needed for them as well.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen

I am not the "Lasher".... The stories authors are, and so are the designers of the ad in that newspaper to a point.


I guess you failed to read your post then. Yes, the article is lashing out at someone and SO ARE YOU. It is what you are lashing out at the confuses me.




Originally posted by xuenchen
background about the source:
Addicting Info.org is a Fibrillating Palpitating Foaming-at-the-Mouth Ultra-Liberal Super Left Wing Fanatical Radical Hot under the collar website.

No, no lashing there; not right from the getgo or anything.


The story rants and raves on and on and ends with this:

This ad shows how vicious the right-wing intends to become as Election Day approaches. Ads like this should never appear in a newspaper and The Daily Advertiser should be boycotted by level-headed citizens until it stops giving crazy right-wing extremists a platform from which to preach their hate and scare the American people.



Wheeeew !!

God Bless the 1st Amendment !!



I am going to ask again. Are you actually lashing out at a left wing article for lashing out at a clearly outrageous right wing ad?

You support that ad? I do not understand why but that is your prerogative. But...to have a problem with someone having a problem with it???????
I do not get that at all.

OK, same question as before but hopefully I made it easier to comprehend this time. I have come to learn that I must ask the same question at least 4 times on ATS before the person I posed it to attempts to respond or the question becomes invalid.
edit on 2-6-2012 by Autumnal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
So, are people to assume that you would agree with their final statement ?


This ad shows how vicious the right-wing intends to become as Election Day approaches. Ads like this should never appear in a newspaper and The Daily Advertiser should be boycotted by level-headed citizens until it stops giving crazy right-wing extremists a platform from which to preach their hate and scare the American people.


Are you asking me if I support their right to free speech?

Tell me that you have a problem with them expressing themselves. God bless the 1st and all that #.


Many think this would satisfy the hungriest of the wildest blood vessel bursting shouters that would love to have it all their way, and only their way.

I'm glad the 1st Amendment is still around, although some Ultra Fanatical Liberals would love to see it go away as long it's repeal would only apply to everybody else but them !

Plus that, the article seems to shift the focus onto the Agenda-21 part.
They went after that with a more forceful and vengeful way.




You are a riot. So the right wing mag can say whatever it wants because that is free speech but the left wing mag better watch what it says cuz....?????



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Autumnal
 


I have no problem with anyone saying anything.

I think the author(s) of the article might.

That's why I cite the 1st.

And, I'll ask again.


So, are people to assume that you would agree with their final statement ?


This ad shows how vicious the right-wing intends to become as Election Day approaches. Ads like this should never appear in a newspaper and The Daily Advertiser should be boycotted by level-headed citizens until it stops giving crazy right-wing extremists a platform from which to preach their hate and scare the American people.


How do you interpret that ?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by Autumnal
 


I have no problem with anyone saying anything.


No?


I think the author(s) of the article might.

That's why I cite the 1st.

And, I'll ask again.


So, are people to assume that you would agree with their final statement ?


This ad shows how vicious the right-wing intends to become as Election Day approaches. Ads like this should never appear in a newspaper and The Daily Advertiser should be boycotted by level-headed citizens until it stops giving crazy right-wing extremists a platform from which to preach their hate and scare the American people.


How do you interpret that ?



And I will ask again what is different about their 1st amendment right?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69
You guys are getting mixed up on Republican and Democrats. Republicans=Democrats. Plain and simple. There is no way in hell you can sustain and manage an Empire if you had honest elections and parties. Just another pair of strings that's creased by the puppet masters.


I hear that and raise you that they are also all hateful and fear mongering overlords. No kidding. If anyone should be rounded up and killed it's these politicians every stanking one of 'em, except Ron Paul Maybe.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
How awful. It is crap like this that polarizes folks to one side or the other. But the fact of the matter is that both sides ARE THE SAME. Our choice is an illusion and both the Democrats and the Republicans are better described as being CRIMINAL GANG ENTERPRISES bent on taking over physical turf ( control of America) and dividing the spoils( programs funded by our tax dollars) amongst their CRIMINAL co-conspirators.

When Democrats are in power, our money goes to criminals like ACORN who squander it on their own agenda. When Republicans are in power our money goes to criminals like Blackwater and Halliburton who squander it on their own agenda.

Not only do they divide the spoils among their cohorts, but they take bribes from lobbyists and wheel and deal themselves into fantastic financial opportunities that are not available to the rest of us. All the while REFUSING TO DO THE JOB THEY WERE ELECTED FOR ( representing their constituency).

Each election cycle the headlines proclaim "DEMOCRATS WIN" or they proclaim "REPUBLICANS WIN". But they never, never, never proclaim "AMERICANS WIN". The reason for that is when Democrats or Republicans win, Americans are SCREWED. [color=#FF0000]BOHICA!



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


More left wing BS attacking the usual right wing BS. The usual BS we have come to expect from people who have nothing but BS to offer the American voter and taxpayer. My God people when will we gather the torches and pitch forks and drag these clowns out of their lair so they can be publicly tarred and feathered?

WE HAVE NOBODY BUT OURSELVES TO BLAME FOR ELECTING DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS. How can anyone with a working brain defend these criminals?



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


You are absolutely correct.

There is no mandate in the Bible that gives preachers the right to pimp the Son of God like a common whore so they can amass worldly wealth. Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, he did not offer to sell them a franchise. God's own Son did not ride around in a fancy new car or wear the most expensive clothing available to him. He did not demand money to attend his church or charge money for his words. Yet somehow modern preachers have no problem charging for the word of God and dipping their hands in the till to fulfill their worldly desires.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


Yep !

Good points !

If only the voters knew.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HamrHeed
If you knew anything about christianity you wouldn't be using these strawman arguements.
These "preachers" aren't christians but don't let that stop you from using it as a war cry.
The blind leading the blind!
Most preachers you will see on tv are deceivers and you will know them by their fruits. Just observe their mannerisms and quit playing stupid

edit on 2-6-2012 by HamrHeed because: added comment


No, they aren't Christian at all!! ...but they are definitely republican



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Yah right, a leftist one that said blankety blank Ameriblankety blank. Please, that is no more Christian than the NC guy.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by HamrHeed
If you knew anything about christianity you wouldn't be using these strawman arguements.
These "preachers" aren't christians but don't let that stop you from using it as a war cry.
The blind leading the blind!
Most preachers you will see on tv are deceivers and you will know them by their fruits. Just observe their mannerisms and quit playing stupid

edit on 2-6-2012 by HamrHeed because: added comment


No, they aren't Christian at all!! ...but they are definitely republican


Well the Chickens COme home to roost church of Marxist Rev Wright isnt real Christian and definitely NOT Republican. But you thought no Christianity could be extreme left.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
reply to post by HamrHeed
 


You are absolutely correct.

There is no mandate in the Bible that gives preachers the right to pimp the Son of God like a common whore so they can amass worldly wealth. Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple, he did not offer to sell them a franchise. God's own Son did not ride around in a fancy new car or wear the most expensive clothing available to him. He did not demand money to attend his church or charge money for his words. Yet somehow modern preachers have no problem charging for the word of God and dipping their hands in the till to fulfill their worldly desires.


Yes, you have a good point. He did indeed ride into town on a donkey to prove humility and show up the prideful. However, you know he demonstrated infinite abundance at the Marriage of Cana.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by HamrHeed
If you knew anything about christianity you wouldn't be using these strawman arguements.
These "preachers" aren't christians but don't let that stop you from using it as a war cry.
The blind leading the blind!
Most preachers you will see on tv are deceivers and you will know them by their fruits. Just observe their mannerisms and quit playing stupid

edit on 2-6-2012 by HamrHeed because: added comment


No, they aren't Christian at all!! ...but they are definitely republican


Well the Chickens COme home to roost church of Marxist Rev Wright isnt real Christian and definitely NOT Republican. But you thought no Christianity could be extreme left.
edit on 3-6-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Actually..... that's not true at all!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join