Palin on the Pledge of Allegiance.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

I would NEVER be doing this if there hadn't been SO many Obama smears before Sarah came along.

Guess you can thank yourself when you get so many more Obama smears after Sarah came along.

Obama 08- More of the Same is my choice for VP.

Lol, I didn't know that either and I am kind of on the bright side.

In various IQ tests I have scored between 144 and 192, while the tests that contained general knowledge didn't throw me off the scales, those ones cost me plenty of points though.

I really can't see judgeing any candidates inteligence on any general knowledge questions or triva because my lowest test was asking me verious questions as far flung as Classical Music and Dinner Attire when I was just a teenage...

Should a patriot know the year the pledge of alligence was written... I supposse if she looses and needs to go on Jeapordy for some extra cash sure.

But otherwise it's no big deal.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It's STUPID, don't you agree???

Then another reason I'm attacking Sarah Palin is that I can't stand this woman.

Another still is that it's fun. I know it's worthless and silly, but I can't not do it.

Thanks for the refreshingly honest admission of stupidity, not to mention the implied admission of immaturity.

And yes, to answer your question, I agree your post was stupid.

reply to post by jamie83


I've said why I have been engaging in smearing Sarah. To show you (all) how stupid it is.

Why did you (and will apparently continue to) engage in smearing Obama?

reply to post by vor78


Since these kinds of topics are of course the kind that help to kill off the Integrity of AboveTopSecret, I would honestly just close this thread and other ones like this if I were a Moderator.

I agree. Seriously, the shamefulness of this campaign is astounding. PLEASE, who gives a damn about the "in god" stuff? This is just another wedge issue. It is just like the coins. It was added in the fifties. Not a part of the origin of this country.
In fact, if you wanted to split the hairs, I would say that the ACTUAL founding fathers wouldn't DARE put such a thing on government mint OR in a national pledge.
But that is beside the point. Whether it is the misspelling of a vegetable, confusing the number of states with the number of states + contingencies or the confusing of who wrote the national pledge, these things have NO bearing on the issues these people are putting on the table. KNOCK IT OFF... pretty please

it's called putting the shoe on the other foot
exploiting an opportunity

i commend BH. I wish i had beat her to the punch on this one.

Notice how the very people defending Mayor Palin (most, not all) are the same people we seen here weeks and months ago posting things about Obama in the same fashion with so much zeal and hatred


atleast there's no racism, sexism, or sheer childish stupidity in this OP

Can't say that for a majority of anti obama threads that tried to tell us all that "obama is the antichrist because he's a muslim and i have a piece of paper from a cracker jacks box to prove it!!!"

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I've said why I have been engaging in smearing Sarah. To show you (all) how stupid it is.

Why did you (and will apparently continue to) engage in smearing Obama?

I knew about Obama's Washington insider connections before most, especially most here on ATS.

I created this thread so that other people would see the corporation and men behind Obama's success.

Obama and the Bilderburgers -PROOF!


This was not a smear. This was exposing the fact that the partners of Perseus LLC, a multi-billion dolaar hedge fund partnered with George Soros, were the people backing Obama.

Why?

Because they have billions of their venture cap money invested in clean technology companies, and they will make hundreds of millions in profit if Obama is elected and is successful in pushing through his plan to invest $150 billion in clean tech hedge funds.

This is not a smear. This is factual research that apparently others found informative since the thread was flagged and starred over 100 times.

Shining the light on who Obama is really working for is not a smear.

reply to post by vor78


I agree but one is on the ticket at the PRESIDENT and the as the VP...pretty stunning to think the niminee on the dem ticket is as stupid as this, and the republical ticket we are talking about the VP...

hmmm I guess PRES niminee to PRES nominee McCain wins being the brighter of the two since we are comparing a PRES nominee to and VP nominee because McCain does not gaffe like the idiot Oblama...pretty sad for the left...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If I wanted to discuss an important issue, I would have posted in the Bully Pulpit...

I want them to see how... well... stupid it is to go after every little gaffe, every little unimportant thing that the candidate does or says.

I would NEVER be doing this if there hadn't been SO many Obama smears before Sarah came along...

Then another reason I'm attacking Sarah Palin is that I can't stand this woman...

Another still is that it's fun. I know it's worthless and silly, but I can't not do it. Not after all the times I defended Obama and crushed the rumors about him.

That's the truth.

NO NO NO NO NO!!! Don't you DARE pretend this isn't important. Misspelling potato is one thing, but this is a whole new level. Palin's a part of the problem. She's one of these gun toting, superstitious, pro-life, anti-gay rednecks that feels that "god did it" is an easy out. Most often nitwits such as her have no idea that "under god" is new nonsense due to the cold war. She doesn't care about the history of the pledge because it doesn't support her agenda that the USA and her particular brand of fairy tale and completely intertwined.

I could rant for hours about how offensive this is, but the bottom line is that this is willful ignorance, most likely due to Palin's pandering to the lowest common denominator, and it must not be tolerated.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
atleast there's no racism, sexism, or sheer childish stupidity in this OP

What's wrong with you? I love a healthy dose of all of the above. Can we make fun of the goer daughter of hers? Or that dumbell son?

Or perhaps we can just make fun of the Palin herself...


You can almost hear dueling bangos...

Still though...



[edit on 9/1/2008 by Sunsetspawn]

Libs I feel sorry for you if you have to compare our VP choice to your PRES choice...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
What's the point of this thread, anyway? What important issue does it hope to discuss?

If I wanted to discuss an important issue, I would have posted in the Bully Pulpit.

Wow! So what does that say about the rest of ATS? Since a post isn't in the Bully Pulpit it isn't serious?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And the truth? One reason is simply that I want to show the Obama haters here (and y'all know who you are) what it's like to have every little word and deed attacked as if it means something. I want them to see how... well... stupid it is to go after every little gaffe, every little unimportant thing that the candidate does or says.

Thanks for your help, but after 8 years of Bush-bashing threads and being labeled as everything from Nazi's to neo-cons, most people are able to muddle through without help.

I don't intend to stoop to this level of discourse. I'm outta this pointless thread.

Buh-bye.

reply to post by marinesniper


Oh, I agree with you and I've made that argument in the past here. The direct Obama/Palin comparison is a false one.

They should be comparing Palin's experience to Biden. Of course, Palin does lose that matchup. But that also means that Obama must still be compared to McCain, where Obama also loses.

So on the experience issue, the only fair way to put it is that:

McCain>Obama
Biden>Palin

Otherwise, it is comparing apples to oranges to a certain extent.

I think McCain wins this argument due to the fact that the Presidency obviously trumps the Vice Presidency, and they have the experience advantage with regards to the former.

As far as Palin is concerned, the argument that will be made by the McCain campaign (and I think it is somewhat compelling), is that a person of Palin or Obama's experience level is well-suited to the Vice Presidency, but perhaps not immediately the Presidency. I also suspect that they will soon begin floating the names of potential cabinet-level posts, such as Secretary of State, for instance, to give voters an idea of who might be advising and assisting Palin should she be forced to assume the Presidency. That's what I'd do, anyway.

misspelling potato. yes i remember that. and i remember another person's chances at a presidential nod being ruined because he yelled yeeeha.

the devil is in the details. little things count. look at the hell we've lived the past eight years because no one paid attention to the details then.

reply to post by vor78



vor78,

I was going to reply to marinesniper but I didn't because I couldn't come up with a mature response so I deleted my reply. I don't agree 100% with what you just wrote but I respect 1000% the way you wrote it. So good you almost changed MY mind.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn


Is it really necessary to post obviously photoshopped images of the candidates here? I can post a GREAT youtube video of a drunken lookalike of Joe Biden and pass it off as real if you'd like.

It adds absolutely nothing to the debate, it lowers it in fact, and probably wastes the bandwidth of the good folks who provide this forum for our use.

reply to post by Sunsetspawn




What is it with Conservatives and not being able to adhere to the flag code?

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

source

There's nothing sexy about that photograph first of all.
Secondly - there's nothing fashionable about wearing the american flag
lastly - its against the actual flag code of which - as a authority figure in the United States government, she should uphold and adore.




edit to add:

That kid in the background doesnt look old enough to be smoking
and he CERTAINLY doesnt look old enough to be drinking a can of beer...


[edit on 9/1/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


oh come on Andrew, go drink you a cold six pack.

By the time you come back you will be more than willing to wrap yourself in that flag.

reply to post by jam321


Nope.
And i dont drink beer

Gentleman Jack or bust.

i think the flag looks tacky as clothing
and i think the flag code should be revered by our leaders

it exists for a reason
to neglect the importance of the flag is to neglect the glory of our nation.

Just my opinion though.
Unlike a majority of America - i do still have great respect for our flag.
always have.

[edit on 9/1/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

let's get a few things straight:

being a female does not justify the constant jokes about her gender and references to how she looks or doesn't look in a bikini!

being democratic or republican, does not justify the slurs about race, finances, or moral values.

being a believer in god, does not justify slurs about a person's intelligence.

knock it the freak off!