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

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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?

Go read the thread addressing that topic. Sheesh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree, this thread got sidetracked by the callout lies. That is why I told smash to go to the other thread.

As to your question:
Where did I say anything remotely close to "don't think Palin is in bed with a radical Christian group that is built upon hating our country and flag"

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: 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.

What they are trying to Say is that there is some secret Leftist re-education scheme going on thought up by Ayers that Obama would implement.

But they cant ask the question or raise the issue that way because it wont gain any traction.


So they resort to this

We have questions about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a known domestic terrorist.

 

[Ldir]

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

Bush was an alcoholic, coke dealer, and draft dodger when he was young. Does that mean nobody should associate with him today?

Wait, that is a bad example. Never mind.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
John McCain proved himself a coward of the first order when he opted not to confront Obama on his allegedly "palling around with terrorists." Instead, he left that task up to his drug addict wife and dim witted running mate. I know that the job of the VP candidate is to go on the attack, but if the principal on the ticket is unwilling to say what the VP candidate is saying, then he either knows it is false/wrong, or he is a coward.

If John McCain were truly honorable, he would rebuke Sarah Palin for trying to incite violence against Senator Obama. There have been calls to "kill him," accusations of treason, and accusations that Obama is a terrorist all from the McCain/Palin crowd. Neither one of them has paused in their speech to condemn that sort of talk. Cindy McCain, the woman who was once investigated by the DEA for diverting narcotics to herself by using her charity for poor children, has a bloody cheek saying anything about anyone.

Cindy McCain accused Obama of voting against funding "her son." Her own husband voted against a similar measure shortly thereafter. Her vicious speech about Obama being a man who hates the troops tied in well with Palin's vicious speech about him hanging out with terrorists. That has stirred up violent feelings in their crowds. It won't be long before we hear racial slurs from the crowd, as they are more and more looking and sounding like Aryan Nation rallies.

If John McCain loves this country so much, then he would not let his wife and running mate undermine the political process by stirring up violence against an opponent. Since McCain loves his career more than he loves his country, he will not do it.

That is a great point. If John McCain has any integrity left he should curb his lipsticked attack dogs. He pretends to want to unite us but he is really inciting divisiveness.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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.

I agree, this thread got sidetracked by the callout lies. That is why I told smash to go to the other thread.

As to your question:
Where did I say anything remotely close to "don't think Palin is in bed with a radical Christian group that is built upon hating our country and flag"

I know you didn't say it, but pretty sure you're going to defend Palin so I figured I'd save you some time.

 

[Ldir]

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.

Yes it is. It is an old trick. Fox does it all the time. It just "raises questions" instead of making accusations. Not.

 

[GroundedSailor]

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.

From Jpeyton's thread, a couple of examples of Repub supporters calling Obama terrorist. This is just a sample.

Terrorist in PA rally

Terrorist in OH rally

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

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.

From Jpeyton's thread, a couple of examples of Repub supporters calling Obama terrorist. This is just a sample.

Terrorist in PA rally

Terrorist in OH rally

Well I'm certain that none of those people are CsG though Butterbean might be among them.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

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

If it were just Ayers, I think my answer would be "yes" pretty easily.

One guy you happen to hang around with/be connected to? I don't see how that could in any way be a pattern.

But the "Frank" guy, the Rev Wright, Ayers, The Palestinian/PLO close friend (possibly more I can't remember now), given that many I don't think it unreasonable to feel there might be a pattern.

And his condemnations might be (unquestionably) meaningful if there weren't so many of tham and all forthcoming when politically expedient - IMO, that casts doubts on the sincerity

Fern

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

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

If it were just Ayers, I think my answer would be "yes" pretty easily.

One guy you happen to hang around with/be connected to? I don't see how that could in any way be a pattern.

But the "Frank" guy, the Rev Wright, Ayers, The Palestinian/PLO close friend (possibly more I can't remember now), given that many I don't think it unreasonable to feel there might be a pattern.

And his condemnations might be (unquestionably) meaningful if there weren't so many of tham and all forthcoming when politically expedient - IMO, that casts doubts on the sincerity

Fern

Only for those of you who'd have doubts no matter what.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Most of this is grasping at straws.

Your own words are the perfect response to your above post:

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Thanks for the duuuhversion.

-------------

Originally posted by: smashp
-snip-
What they are trying to Say is that there is some secret Leftist re-education scheme going on thought up by Ayers that Obama would implement.

But they cant ask the question or raise the issue that way because it wont gain any traction.


So they resort to this

We have questions about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a known domestic terrorist.

Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Rephrase what is an arguably reasonable line of questioning into something so absurd it can be easily dismissed out-of-hand.

-------------------

The question is not simply one of "association" per se, or necessarily "terrorism". I do not believe Obama supports violence either.

However, we are to believe that Obama has been politically aware/active for a longtime. Even forgoing lucrative careers etc to pursue his (benevolent) activism etc.

So, I find it rather difficult to believe that these voluntary and friendly associations were void of political/policy content, particularly given these people were dedicated political activist in their own right and the context of the relationship was in the political realm.

So it's a fair question to ask what extent does Obama sympathize/share with their (non-mainstream) views?

None?

Some?

A lot?

Identical?

Too bad this type line of inquiry is willingly and whole-heartedly censored by many Dems here and elsewhere.

Edit: Not to put too fine a point on it, but some info on the above may be instructive as to what policies Obama may wish to pursue after the election. Like all politicians, he ran to the left during the primary, the ran to the center for the gen elect (and his FISA vote was unexpected and a disapointment for many of his supporters).

Had he been in Senate 20 years I don't think this line of inquiry would be as interesting; we would already know much about him. I just think we don't.

Fern

 

[DukeN]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Could McCain have picked a worse running mate?

yes, he could have picked any of the GOP primary also-rans.

in any event, this is a non-story... though then again, so is Ayers, Keating, Cuntgate, etc.

Actually he could've picked Romney and not gone for the female vote.

The difference is that the Ayers, Keating, etc allegations are mere *associations* at best while Palin gave speeches at conventions for the secessionists' events.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't see what's wrong with being a Secessionists.

States freely join, I think they should be able to freely leave if they want to.

Why should we hold them *prisoner*?

If more states wanted to, and could so without being invaded, raped, killed and burned, the federal government might have to shape up. It's the most effective way to bust up the 2 parties stranglehold I can think of.

Fern

So you don't see what's wrong with someone wanting to be VP of the US yet supporting radical Christian secessionists who want the US government (position she's running for) to rot in hell? You "don't see what's wrong" with that?

Please enlighten us, in detail, how a state seceding would "bust up the 2 party stranglehold"? How that would be a patriotic thing. How supporters of that party would be viewed as heroes.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Most of this is grasping at straws.

Your own words are the perfect response to your above post:

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Thanks for the duuuhversion.

-------------

Originally posted by: smashp
-snip-
What they are trying to Say is that there is some secret Leftist re-education scheme going on thought up by Ayers that Obama would implement.

But they cant ask the question or raise the issue that way because it wont gain any traction.


So they resort to this

We have questions about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a known domestic terrorist.

Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Rephrase what is an arguably reasonable line of questioning into something so absurd it can be easily dismissed out-of-hand.

-------------------

The question is not simply one of "association" per se, or necessarily "terrorism". I do not believe Obama supports violence either.

However, we are to believe that Obama has been politically aware/active for a longtime. Even forgoing lucrative careers etc to pursue his (benevolent) activism etc.

So, I find it rather difficult to believe that these voluntary and friendly associations were void of political/policy content, particularly given these people were dedicated political activist in their own right and the context of the relationship was in the political realm.

So it's a fair question to ask what extent does Obama sympathize/share with their (non-mainstream) views?

None?

Some?

A lot?

Identical?

Too bad this type line of inquiry is willingly and whole-heartedly censored by many Dems here and elsewhere.

Edit: Not to put too fine a point on it, but some info on the above may be instructive as to what policies Obama may wish to pursue after the election. Like all politicians, he ran to the left during the primary, the ran to the center for the gen elect (and his FISA vote was unexpected and a disapointment for many of his supporters).

Had he been in Senate 20 years I don't think this line of inquiry would be as interesting; we would already know much about him. I just think we don't.

Fern

Thank you for putting this into an intelligent form. I feel those question as you phrased it are absolutly fine questions to ask.

The problem i have is this

We have questions about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a known domestic terrorist.


and that question there exactly is what people are asking and raising. In Fact on the Am channels it has been none stop all day with no intelligence or no new information. Just non stop

Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist


They fully document the weather underground and everything Ayers did, then they associate Obama with ayers


that is why you have idiots yelling out Obama is a terrorist at McCain rallies. The Sheeps' minds are weak

And that is the whole purpose of this entire escapade.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

She didn't speak at their convention you idiot.

She sent them a very standard greet from the governor. I am sure she has made dozens of similar tapes during her time in office. And I am sure her predecessors did the same thing.

Some what Palin said sounded pretty conventional. Some of it could have some... ummm... interesting interpretations:

I'm Governor Sarah Palin, and I am delighted to welcome you to the 2008 Alaskan Indepenence Party convention in the golden heart city, Fairbanks. Your party plays an important role in our state's politics. I've always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties, as well.

I share your party's vision of upholding the Constitution of our great state. My administration remains focused on reigning in government growth so individual liberty and opportunity can expand. I know you agree with that.

We have a great promise to be a self sufficient state made up of the hardest working, most grateful Americans in our nation.

So, as your convention gets under way, I hope that you all are inspired by remembering that all those years ago, it was in this same city that Alaska's Constitution was born. And it was founded on hope and trust and liberty and opportunity.

I carry that message of opportunity forward in my administration as we continue to move our state ahead and create positive change I say, good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work. God bless you.

On the Alaska Independence Party's homepage, their Founder, Joseph Vogler says:

I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America and her damned institutions.

Joseph Vogler says:

The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government.

And I won't be buried under their damn flag,

In her recorded welcoming speech, Sarah Palin says:

Your party plays an important role in our state's politics.

She further says:

good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work.

Which Sarah Palin said that? The candidate for Vice President of the United States, or the one who hangs with terrorist like Vogel and her husband who have "no use for America and her damned institutions" and advocate that Alaska should secede from the union? :shocked:

 

[db]

Exactly. AIP Party founder Joe Vogler was a Domestic Terrorist!
And:

"Alaskan Independence Party sponsored By Iran"!

http://www.boingboing.net/2008...skan-independence.html

 

[SP33Demon]

Added Youtube link since Jedreport.com was down due to site getting hammered this morning.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

Most of this is grasping at straws.

Your own words are the perfect response to your above post:

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Thanks for the duuuhversion.

-------------

Originally posted by: smashp
-snip-
What they are trying to Say is that there is some secret Leftist re-education scheme going on thought up by Ayers that Obama would implement.

But they cant ask the question or raise the issue that way because it wont gain any traction.


So they resort to this

We have questions about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a known domestic terrorist.

Thanks for illustrating my point perfectly. Rephrase what is an arguably reasonable line of questioning into something so absurd it can be easily dismissed out-of-hand.

-------------------

The question is not simply one of "association" per se, or necessarily "terrorism". I do not believe Obama supports violence either.

However, we are to believe that Obama has been politically aware/active for a longtime. Even forgoing lucrative careers etc to pursue his (benevolent) activism etc.

So, I find it rather difficult to believe that these voluntary and friendly associations were void of political/policy content, particularly given these people were dedicated political activist in their own right and the context of the relationship was in the political realm.

So it's a fair question to ask what extent does Obama sympathize/share with their (non-mainstream) views?

None?

Some?

A lot?

Identical?

Too bad this type line of inquiry is willingly and whole-heartedly censored by many Dems here and elsewhere.

Edit: Not to put too fine a point on it, but some info on the above may be instructive as to what policies Obama may wish to pursue after the election. Like all politicians, he ran to the left during the primary, the ran to the center for the gen elect (and his FISA vote was unexpected and a disapointment for many of his supporters).

Had he been in Senate 20 years I don't think this line of inquiry would be as interesting; we would already know much about him. I just think we don't.

Fern

Thank you for putting this into an intelligent form. I feel those question as you phrased it are absolutly fine questions to ask.

The problem i have is this

We have questions about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a known domestic terrorist.


and that question there exactly is what people are asking and raising. In Fact on the Am channels it has been none stop all day with no intelligence or no new information. Just non stop

Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist


They fully document the weather underground and everything Ayers did, then they associate Obama with ayers


that is why you have idiots yelling out Obama is a terrorist at McCain rallies. The Sheeps' minds are weak

And that is the whole purpose of this entire escapade.

Hate to say it, but this is truth ^^^

I check out Glenn Beck, Rush, and O'Reilly on the radio.

Of the 3, O'Reilly is actually pretty fair and focused.

Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are fucking nutjobs though, and their callers are even worse.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
The problem i have is this

We have questions about Obama's association with Bill Ayers, a known domestic terrorist.


and that question there exactly is what people are asking and raising. In Fact on the Am channels it has been none stop all day with no intelligence or no new information. Just non stop

Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist
Bill Ayers is a Terrorist- Obama knows Bill Ayers- Obama is a terrorist


They fully document the weather underground and everything Ayers did, then they associate Obama with ayers


that is why you have idiots yelling out Obama is a terrorist at McCain rallies. The Sheeps' minds are weak

And that is the whole purpose of this entire escapade.

I don't listen to AM radio, but I think I understand your complaint.

I don't necessarily agree with the talking heads who just repeat that Obama knows Ayes, who was a terrorist, and therefore by (overly simplistic) extension Obama is a terrorist (or whatever?).

That type of simplistic assumption that associations with a *bad guy* means you = *bad guy* is stupid. If that were the case every criminal trial lawyer would by extension be a criminal him/herself because they spend all day associating with criminals.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't see what's wrong with being a Secessionists.

States freely join, I think they should be able to freely leave if they want to.

Why should we hold them *prisoner*?

If more states wanted to, and could so without being invaded, raped, killed and burned, the federal government might have to shape up. It's the most effective way to bust up the 2 parties stranglehold I can think of.

Fern

So you don't see what's wrong with someone wanting to be VP of the US yet supporting radical Christian secessionists who want the US government (position she's running for) to rot in hell? You "don't see what's wrong" with that?

Please enlighten us, in detail, how a state seceding would "bust up the 2 party stranglehold"? How that would be a patriotic thing. How supporters of that party would be viewed as heroes.

I'll address your question that I bolded above. The two I underlined are your creations and unrelated to my post.

How would states seceding from the union bust up the two party system? IMO, any state seceding would have a new government and I can't see it being a Repub or Dem party. Why secede but keep the same government? That makes no sense to me. No, I think you'd have a new thrid party arise for those states leaving.

As to this remark:

So you don't see what's wrong with someone wanting to be VP of the US yet supporting radical Christian secessionists who want the US government (position she's running for) to rot in hell? You "don't see what's wrong" with that?

^ This appears to be an invention on your behalf. I do not believe Palin supports "radical Christian seccessionts who want the US gov to rot in hell". I.e., I do not believe she's a seccessionist. She wasn't a member of that party, so I think attributing the views of a few of those in that party to her, a member of a differetn party, is completely fallacious. However, I would agree that it's absurd to have secessionist as a VP of the government they want to secede from.

Otherwise, I still do not have a problem with people who are secessionist. You freely joined, IMO you can freely leave. I don't see how that position is difficult to understand, even if one doesn't agree with it.

Fern