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.
Personally, I base my vote/opinions regarding a candidate on his/her actual actions and voting records. No amount of political spin, from either side, can change those.
I've seen her..
DUPLICATE POST FROM OTHER PALIN MOVIE FAN THREAD:
Movie Review by NY POST:
But its tone is an excruciating combination of bombast and whining, it’s so outlandishly partisan that it makes Richard Nixon look like Abraham Lincoln and its febrile rush of images — not excluding earthquakes, car wrecks, volcanic eruption and attacking Rottweilers — reminded me of the brainwash movie Alex is forced to sit through in “A Clockwork Orange.” Except no one came along to refresh my pupils with eyedrops.
Read more: www.nypost.com...
Guess who owns the NY POST. Yep, Rupert Murdoch. And here is what Mr. Murdoch had to say about what the NY POST prints. (Disclaimer: From an unrelated story a couple of years ago.)
"As the Chairman of the New York Post, I am ultimately responsible for what is printed in its pages. The buck stops with me.
What we got here is a Quagmire.
/MD
Originally posted by mishigas
Everything from this point on in your post is nothing more than your own partisan opinion.
Sorry, Bub, but that's a logical fallacy and simply not the truth of the matter. It's like I said in my second post in this thread, "it's not just Democrats/Liberals who can't take this political cheerleader seriously as a candidate. Most Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone who has taken the time to actually educate themselves regarding legitimate political issues can't take her seriously either.".
I know your world would be much easier if everything was "black and white", and you could simply chalk up anyone who dislikes Palin as being a partisan voice, but that's just not how things are in the real world. There are many people who dislike Palin as a potential "future candidate" based on own lack of merit, and partisan spin has nothing to do with it. I happen to be one of those people.
Sorry, Bub, but that's a logical fallacy and simply not the truth of the matter. It's like I said in my second post in this thread, "it's not just Democrats/Liberals who can't take this political cheerleader seriously as a candidate. Most Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone who has taken the time to actually educate themselves regarding legitimate political issues can't take her seriously either.".
I know your world would be much easier if everything was "black and white", and you could simply chalk up anyone who dislikes Palin as being a partisan voice, but that's just not how things are in the real world. There are many people who dislike Palin as a potential "future candidate" based on own lack of merit, and partisan spin has nothing to do with it. I happen to be one of those people.
Originally posted by mishigas
Well then you better jump on that bandwagon with the rest of the kool-aid drinkers. Can't be thinking for yourself, now can you? What would the flock think?
Originally posted by mishigas
As I thought. "One of those people".
Originally posted by mishigas
Bot an original thought in your mind. If I want to know what you think, I'll ask any one of the million sheeple out there.
Source
par·ti·san – noun
an adherent or supporter of a person, group, party, or cause, especially a person who shows a biased, emotional allegiance.
par·ti·san – adjective
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of partisans; partial to a specific party, person, etc.: partisan politics.
Again, what sheeple? These groups mentioned rarely agree on anything. Liberitarian sheeple? Republican sheeple? Democrat sheeple? Conservative sheeple? Liberal sheeple? Logical thinker sheeple? For you to even attempt to paint them all under the same broad brush is absurd.
Perhaps you simply don't understand the contextual definition of the word partisan. Here you go...
Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
You better stay out of Arizona. That's a red state. -GOP stronghold -
Sarah just moved in to Scottsdale.
------------------------------------------------------------
The choice is clear.
Yank out the socialist Obama and elect the super capitalist Sarah Palin!
The USA runs on high octane capitalism!edit on 26-5-2011 by Eurisko2012 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mishigas
Party affiliation doesn't matter, or isn't even necessary, for you to wear the sheeple moniker. It's just your attitude that "If the crowd says it's so, it must be so" that pervades your posts and earns you the label.
Originally posted by mishigas
Everything from this point on in your post is nothing more than your own partisan opinion.
Originally posted by mishigas
You need assurance from the majority.
Originally posted by mishigas
The fact that you are unable to supply links is proof that you are merely parroting what you've been told.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Fact is that people vote with their eyes. They are easily deceived by what they see. G.W. Bush was better looking than Kerry. Obama was better looking than McCain and Hillary. Thats why Palin is the only candidate that stands any chance of beating Obama, regardless of what policies she follows.
If it was up to me, perhaps this lady would not continue her genes... even if I did not know her political affiliations.