It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Alex Jones says Palin to spark Obama re-election

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 02:23 AM

Well, I have to say I agree with 95% of what he says here....

Palin is not the answer, that much is a fact.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by xstealth

I don't think any of this is going to happen. In about 1 year folks will be turning her off and she'll be old news. I used to like her and now I realise that I just liked looking at her. When I hear her voice and that home spun cadence it makes me feel like I woke up in a bad dream and was married to that girl from Nashville I dated in college.

She's a flash in the pan and catching the dough while she can.

I agree with you. She gets anywhere near the Presidency and I'm outta here.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 02:37 AM
I think people hate on Alex cause they see him making money. Oh well, he keeps coming with the truth and bringing it to the public.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 03:12 AM
Alex jones seems to hit and miss. I think this may be a miss.

When the 2012 elections roll around, I hope the Reps can come up with someone better. If not, the fix is truly in.

I oppose Obama, but Palin as POTUS is a really scary thought.

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 04:39 AM
egads! every other person he called a whore! what is up with that? cant these guys find a more civilized way to discuss what they perceive to be each other's shortfalls? what's with all the whore this and whore that? and if he's wrong, what the sam hill did he just do? he called his brothers and sisters sexually immoral money grubbers. can someone translate that for me???

alex needs to lead the way in civilized speech by choosing less offensive terminology to frame his disagreements in. so does rush and most of the right and left. these are living breathing human beings. not words on a page

posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 05:37 AM
now that i've had a chance to listen to it again, i have the following observations to make:

1) wasn't sarah palin saying that she felt that if obama took a more supportive role in supporting our allies, which includes israel, that it would help his chances of being re-elected? apparently there's something going on at the tippety top right now that us common folk aren't privy to. mayhaps we backed down from a threat, one that put us into a precariously dangerous position with israel and i'm not sure how that plays out in the isaac vs. ishmael drama.

2) if as conspiracy theorists claim, we are being run by a jewish cabal of bankers, not supporting israel seems a bit unlikely, doncha think? a piece of the puzzle is missing. but what is it? if that piece of the puzzle is that obama is actually on the side of israel, why then would sarah comment that he needs to show support for israel by his stance against israel's enemies. which she is suggesting, he is not doing. it's confusing.

3) if they are both on the same side, and are just pretending to be on opposing teams, why does sarah think he needs to be tougher on israel's enemies, while obama does not? is that also just for show? and if so, and they are both interested in attacking iran, why hasn't obama already done it? something's just not right. i don't think the conspiracy is as simple as it has been in the past.

top topics

log in