Palin and her AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) allegiance...

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look it's the liar RedDawn again.... spouting the same old tired strawman bullshit.

There is no "guilt by association" in my position on the other subject. There are questions that need to be raised due to his associations but no where does that make him "guilty" of what his associates did/do/whatever. No one is saying BHO is a terrorist because his ties to Ayers, so stop with the lies.

You can spin it anyway you want but you're not convincing anyone. Your intent is quite clear.

:roll: Obviously you on the left know my intent better than I do. :roll: You see, just because you people use speech codes - doesn't mean I do. What I stated, is exactly what is stated - not anything more no matter how bad your BDS or BHO apologist syndrome is.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Better a liar than a douchebag.

3rd grade? :laugh:

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look it's the liar RedDawn again.... spouting the same old tired strawman bullshit.

There is no "guilt by association" in my position on the other subject. There are questions that need to be raised due to his associations but no where does that make him "guilty" of what his associates did/do/whatever. No one is saying BHO is a terrorist because his ties to Ayers, so stop with the lies.

You can spin it anyway you want but you're not convincing anyone. Your intent is quite clear.

:roll: Obviously you on the left know my intent better than I do. :roll: You see, just because you people use speech codes - doesn't mean I do. What I stated, is exactly what is stated - not anything more no matter how bad your BDS or BHO apologist syndrome is.

Thanks for the duuuhversion.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Better a liar than a douchebag.

3rd grade? :laugh:

Duuhvert away.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Would you want your VP sleeping with a Traitor?

If i was republican, of course. I am still not sure how best to spin this one. It's hard.

"Palin gave a speech to a group; she was unaware of the more radical aspects of the group at the time. Her husband is a member of said organization, and while the Palins, like every couple, do not agree on every single political issue, Todd Palin does not support the absurd idea of Alaskan secession."

Ah but using the Wingnut logic of PJ, Corbett and CSG she's guilty by association.

Hey look it's the liar RedDawn again.... spouting the same old tired strawman bullshit.

There is no "guilt by association" in my position on the other subject. There are questions that need to be raised due to his associations but no where does that make him "guilty" of what his associates did/do/whatever. No one is saying BHO is a terrorist because his ties to Ayers, so stop with the lies.

The head Wingnut shows up, starts labeling others liars for using the exact same Wingnut logic he uses. Your desperation reveals your bitterness.

Except, I'm not the wingnut and what you claim is my logic is flat out false. If you would have read my post you would have realized that so I can only surmise that you either can't read or are just a flat out liar.

Yes you are the extremely bitter Wingnut and I agree, your logic is skewed.

:laugh: ....says the old bitter man who has to belittle people on the intarweb about their weight... and tries to intimidate people with the "you won't say that to me in person" BS just like a school yard bully.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Better a liar than a douchebag.

3rd grade? :laugh:

Duuhvert away.

:laugh: What do you think your post was? Sheesh. Are all you apologists this blind?

 

[OrByte]

I dunno about you guys,

but I question the judgment and character of someone who is married to a secessionist.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Better a liar than a douchebag.

3rd grade? :laugh:

Duuhvert away.

:laugh: What do you think your post was? Sheesh. Are all you apologists this blind?

Duuuuhvert on my brotha.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Would you want your VP sleeping with a Traitor?

If i was republican, of course. I am still not sure how best to spin this one. It's hard.

"Palin gave a speech to a group; she was unaware of the more radical aspects of the group at the time. Her husband is a member of said organization, and while the Palins, like every couple, do not agree on every single political issue, Todd Palin does not support the absurd idea of Alaskan secession."

Ah but using the Wingnut logic of PJ, Corbett and CSG she's guilty by association.

Hey look it's the liar RedDawn again.... spouting the same old tired strawman bullshit.

There is no "guilt by association" in my position on the other subject. There are questions that need to be raised due to his associations but no where does that make him "guilty" of what his associates did/do/whatever. No one is saying BHO is a terrorist because his ties to Ayers, so stop with the lies.

The head Wingnut shows up, starts labeling others liars for using the exact same Wingnut logic he uses. Your desperation reveals your bitterness.

Except, I'm not the wingnut and what you claim is my logic is flat out false. If you would have read my post you would have realized that so I can only surmise that you either can't read or are just a flat out liar.

Yes you are the extremely bitter Wingnut and I agree, your logic is skewed.

:laugh: ....says the old bitter man who has to belittle people on the intarweb about their weight... and tries to intimidate people with the "you won't say that to me in person" BS just like a school hard bully.

LOL, given a guy a taste of his own medicine is not bitterness, it's a comeuppance just like you are getting a comeuppance for your bitter little tirades in these threads.:thumbsup:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I dunno about you guys,

but I question the judgment and character of someone who is married to a secessionist.

Well at least if you are using CSG's Wingnut Logic.:laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Would you want your VP sleeping with a Traitor?

If i was republican, of course. I am still not sure how best to spin this one. It's hard.

"Palin gave a speech to a group; she was unaware of the more radical aspects of the group at the time. Her husband is a member of said organization, and while the Palins, like every couple, do not agree on every single political issue, Todd Palin does not support the absurd idea of Alaskan secession."

Ah but using the Wingnut logic of PJ, Corbett and CSG she's guilty by association.

Hey look it's the liar RedDawn again.... spouting the same old tired strawman bullshit.

There is no "guilt by association" in my position on the other subject. There are questions that need to be raised due to his associations but no where does that make him "guilty" of what his associates did/do/whatever. No one is saying BHO is a terrorist because his ties to Ayers, so stop with the lies.

The head Wingnut shows up, starts labeling others liars for using the exact same Wingnut logic he uses. Your desperation reveals your bitterness.

Except, I'm not the wingnut and what you claim is my logic is flat out false. If you would have read my post you would have realized that so I can only surmise that you either can't read or are just a flat out liar.

Yes you are the extremely bitter Wingnut and I agree, your logic is skewed.

:laugh: ....says the old bitter man who has to belittle people on the intarweb about their weight... and tries to intimidate people with the "you won't say that to me in person" BS just like a school hard bully.

LOL, given a guy a taste of his own medicine is not bitterness, it's a comeuppance just like you are getting a comeuppance for your bitter little tirades in these threads.:thumbsup:

Except my posts aren't bitterness. I'm not sure if you're just projecting but just because I call you leftists out on your strawman bullshit/lies does not mean I'm bitter.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Would you want your VP sleeping with a Traitor?

If i was republican, of course. I am still not sure how best to spin this one. It's hard.

"Palin gave a speech to a group; she was unaware of the more radical aspects of the group at the time. Her husband is a member of said organization, and while the Palins, like every couple, do not agree on every single political issue, Todd Palin does not support the absurd idea of Alaskan secession."

Ah but using the Wingnut logic of PJ, Corbett and CSG she's guilty by association.

Hey look it's the liar RedDawn again.... spouting the same old tired strawman bullshit.

There is no "guilt by association" in my position on the other subject. There are questions that need to be raised due to his associations but no where does that make him "guilty" of what his associates did/do/whatever. No one is saying BHO is a terrorist because his ties to Ayers, so stop with the lies.

Then what is the purpose of the Questioning and/or smear going on.

Is it Psychological mind-f@ck being used to embed into people's head that Obama=terrorist?

What legitimate questions does this "association" bring up?

Please provide these concise legitimate questions you have?

YOU leftists are the one's with the BHO=terrorist crap. I have never stated such nor does the Ayers thing mean BHO is a terrorist. It's been stated over and over, yet you people still won't admit you're fighting an argument that is a figment of your imagination.

The Ayers thing is about character and judgment - not an attempt to claim BHO is a terrorist. Sheesh.

F'n apologists.

Please provide these concise legitimate questions you have?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Would you want your VP sleeping with a Traitor?

If i was republican, of course. I am still not sure how best to spin this one. It's hard.

"Palin gave a speech to a group; she was unaware of the more radical aspects of the group at the time. Her husband is a member of said organization, and while the Palins, like every couple, do not agree on every single political issue, Todd Palin does not support the absurd idea of Alaskan secession."

Ah but using the Wingnut logic of PJ, Corbett and CSG she's guilty by association.

Hey look it's the liar RedDawn again.... spouting the same old tired strawman bullshit.

There is no "guilt by association" in my position on the other subject. There are questions that need to be raised due to his associations but no where does that make him "guilty" of what his associates did/do/whatever. No one is saying BHO is a terrorist because his ties to Ayers, so stop with the lies.

The head Wingnut shows up, starts labeling others liars for using the exact same Wingnut logic he uses. Your desperation reveals your bitterness.

Except, I'm not the wingnut and what you claim is my logic is flat out false. If you would have read my post you would have realized that so I can only surmise that you either can't read or are just a flat out liar.

Yes you are the extremely bitter Wingnut and I agree, your logic is skewed.

:laugh: ....says the old bitter man who has to belittle people on the intarweb about their weight... and tries to intimidate people with the "you won't say that to me in person" BS just like a school hard bully.

LOL, given a guy a taste of his own medicine is not bitterness, it's a comeuppance just like you are getting a comeuppance for your bitter little tirades in these threads.:thumbsup:

Except my posts are bitterness.

Hello, that's more than obvious.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Hey look it's the liar RedDawn again.... spouting the same old tired strawman bullshit.

There is no "guilt by association" in my position on the other subject. There are questions that need to be raised due to his associations but no where does that make him "guilty" of what his associates did/do/whatever. No one is saying BHO is a terrorist because his ties to Ayers, so stop with the lies.

You can spin it anyway you want but you're not convincing anyone. Your intent is quite clear.

:roll: Obviously you on the left know my intent better than I do. :roll: You see, just because you people use speech codes - doesn't mean I do. What I stated, is exactly what is stated - not anything more no matter how bad your BDS or BHO apologist syndrome is.

Thanks for the duuuhversion.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: smashp
-snip-
What legitimate questions does this "association" bring up?

Pardon me for butting in uninvited and playing *devil's advocate*.

Perhaps it may indicate ideological sympathies?

He also has fairly substantive and personal ties to a Palestinian, forget the name now, but the guy was an employee of the PLO while it was listed as a terrorist org.

Could that indicate a desire by Obama to turn US policy away from pro-Israeli to more pro-Palestinian?

Not to debate it here (I know many here would prefer that), but shouldn't that type of policy shift be debated/discussed out in the open before the election?

Why the continual repeated ties to non-mainstream and controversial individuals, but then denounce them and proclaim to be mainstream? I think it goes to the question of the validity of the "mainstream" claim. That's a legitimate question; trying to distort such probing by portraying it as something extreme & simplistic such those raising the question are merely attempting to paint Obama as a terrorists himself is disengenuous (notwithstanding the behavior of a few simplistic oafs at a rally). It's a shifting of the focus to something easily dismissed; thus avoiding any real or substantive question and the need to answer them.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future the MSM comes under critism for brushing aside questions in this election as they did in the Iraqi war build up. IMO, they've become more *cheerleaders* than journalists.

Fern

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I dunno about you guys,

but I question the judgment and character of someone who is married to a secessionist.

You mean married to a traitor? I agree.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: OrByte
I dunno about you guys,

but I question the judgment and character of someone who is married to a secessionist.

Well at least if you are using CSG's Wingnut Logic.:laugh:

which was the whole point. This line of attack is stupid pure and simple.

I am sure Obama is still teaching and talking to his very young daughters about Santa Claus.

In effect, Obama believes that there is a Santa Claus.

Should I be questioning his character and judgment based upon the fact that Obama still believes in Santa Claus?

We can keep playing the game with all candidates and with virtually any scenario.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: smashp
-snip-
What legitimate questions does this "association" bring up?

Pardon me for butting in uninvited and playing *devil's advocate*.

Perhaps it may indicate ideological sympathies?

He also has fairly substantive and personal ties to a Palestinian, forget the name now, but the guy was an employee of the PLO while it was listed as a terrorist org.

Could that indicate a desire by Obama to turn US policy away from pro-Israeli to more pro-Palestinian?

Not to debate it here (I know many here would prefer that), but shouldn't that type of policy shift be debated/discussed out in the open before the election?

Why the continual repeated ties to non-mainstream and controversial individuals, but then denounce them and proclaim to be mainstream? I think it goes to the question of the validity of the "mainstream" claim. That's a legitimate question; trying to distort such probing by portraying it as something extreme & simplistic such those raising the question are merely attempting to paint Obama as a terrorists himself is disengenuous (notwithstanding the behavior of a few simplistic oafs at a rally). It's a shifting of the focus to something easily dismissed; thus avoiding any real or substantive question and the need to answer them.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future the MSM comes under critism for brushing aside questions in this election as they did in the Iraqi war build up. IMO, they've become more *cheerleaders* than journalists.

Fern

Condemning Ayers isn't enough for you? I know it would never be enough for the bitter Wingnuts like CSG.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Hello, that's more than obvious.

:laugh: :roll:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: smashp
Please provide these concise legitimate questions you have?

I've stated them in the other thread. Go read it and if you still don't understand my position on that subject then please seek help with reading/comprehension.

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: smashp
-snip-
What legitimate questions does this "association" bring up?

Pardon me for butting in uninvited and playing *devil's advocate*.

Perhaps it may indicate ideological sympathies?

He also has fairly substantive and personal ties to a Palestinian, forget the name now, but the guy was an employee of the PLO while it was listed as a terrorist org.

Could that indicate a desire by Obama to turn US policy away from pro-Israeli to more pro-Palestinian?

Not to debate it here (I know many here would prefer that), but shouldn't that type of policy shift be debated/discussed out in the open before the election?

Why the continual repeated ties to non-mainstream and controversial individuals, but then denounce them and proclaim to be mainstream? I think it goes to the question of the validity of the "mainstream" claim. That's a legitimate question; trying to distort such probing by portraying it as something extreme & simplistic such those raising the question are merely attempting to paint Obama as a terrorists himself is disengenuous (notwithstanding the behavior of a few simplistic oafs at a rally). It's a shifting of the focus to something easily dismissed; thus avoiding any real or substantive question and the need to answer them.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future the MSM comes under critism for brushing aside questions in this election as they did in the Iraqi war build up. IMO, they've become more *cheerleaders* than journalists.

Fern

Most of this is grasping at straws.

 

[OrByte]

I question McCains character and judgment because he crashed his plane like 5 times.

He wasn't smart enough to stop flying after his 2nd or 3rd airplane wreck.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp
Please provide these concise legitimate questions you have?

I've stated them in the other thread. Go read it and if you still don't understand my position on that subject then please seek help with reading/comprehension.

Then

Ctrl-C

Ctrl-V


Too Lazy are you,

Please provide these concise legitimate questions you have?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: smashp
-snip-
What legitimate questions does this "association" bring up?

Pardon me for butting in uninvited and playing *devil's advocate*.

Perhaps it may indicate ideological sympathies?

He also has fairly substantive and personal ties to a Palestinian, forget the name now, but the guy was an employee of the PLO while it was listed as a terrorist org.

Could that indicate a desire by Obama to turn US policy away from pro-Israeli to more pro-Palestinian?

Not to debate it here (I know many here would prefer that), but shouldn't that type of policy shift be debated/discussed out in the open before the election?

Why the continual repeated ties to non-mainstream and controversial individuals, but then denounce them and proclaim to be mainstream? I think it goes to the question of the validity of the "mainstream" claim. That's a legitimate question; trying to distort such probing by portraying it as something extreme & simplistic such those raising the question are merely attempting to paint Obama as a terrorists himself is disengenuous (notwithstanding the behavior of a few simplistic oafs at a rally). It's a shifting of the focus to something easily dismissed; thus avoiding any real or substantive question and the need to answer them.

I wouldn't be surprised if in the future the MSM comes under critism for brushing aside questions in this election as they did in the Iraqi war build up. IMO, they've become more *cheerleaders* than journalists.

Fern

Condemning Ayers isn't enough for you? I know it would never be enough for the bitter Wingnuts like CSG.

You didn't read his post. Not that anything questioning the messiah would be "legit" enough for apologists/liars like you.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: smashp
Please provide these concise legitimate questions you have?

I've stated them in the other thread. Go read it and if you still don't understand my position on that subject then please seek help with reading/comprehension.

Let's get back to the original thread and why you don't think Palin is in bed with a radical Christian group that is built upon hating our country and flag? Inquiring minds want to know.