Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Maybe McCain should have vetted PalinFollow

#77 Sep 02 2008 at 12:08 PM Rating: Default
Smasharoo wrote:

More AIP members coming out to go on the record saying that Palin was a member. Camp McCain denies it and, meanwhile, Ms. Palin is hidden away with no public speaking or interviews since she was announced on Friday. Wasn't Biden all over right after he was added to the ticket? Someone's afraid to let the girl speak, it seems.


Well, you know, she's probably in the kitchen barefoot preparing to squeeze out a few more kids with extra chromosomes before menopause kicks in.



Pics?
#80 Sep 02 2008 at 12:23 PM Rating: Decent
knoxsouthy wrote:


Ah except for one minor detail. They're radical muslims who have attacked the US, and western society, for over 25yrs now. They purposely target civilians whereas the US military does not. But hey as long as the liberals grant them immunity because of the big bad american military everythings justifiable.





Yeah except the USA has been butting their noses into the affairs of Middle Easterners for far longer than that.

American support of Israel: Nuff said..thanks for playing.
#83 Sep 02 2008 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Quote:
Best post ever. You are so correct, and I never really thought about it that way.


Not having a dig at you personnaly, but most people don't see it that way due to the massive amount of effort applied by the aggressors to portray the victims of the aggression as somehow deserving of being attacked, blown up and otherwise murdered to death.

Without that effort, theres no way on earth a country like the US (that is after all mostly populated by reasonable friendly people who just want to get on with life) could be convinced that the nation of mostly friendly reasonable folk who just want to get on with life, needs to be bombed back to the stone-age.

The fact that enough Americans (and others) are still convinced that there is a 'job to be finished' in Iraq, is evidence that the media has done its work extremely well.

Another example is the Israel/Palestinian issue.

Israel has been conducting an illegal military occupation of Palestinian land for decades now. They murder, imprison, torture the people, and they destroy Palestinian homes, farms, infrastructure and property with impunity. they are also building permanent settlements on occupied land (contrary to the 4th Geneva convention).

Yet, to listen to US media, you would think that it is the Israelis who are the victims. News reports are all about israeli fatalities or injuries. pictures are always of palestinians throwing stones at the Israeli military. The reason they are throwing rocks and blowing themselves up at checkpoints is because they are the victims of an illegal military occupation of horrific proportions. yet in the west, and particularly the US, it is the Israelis who are defending themselves.

Its all about perspective.




____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#84 Sep 02 2008 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
knoxsouthy wrote:
You people are terrified of what she brings to the table; that much even a blind man could see.


It's true. I'm terrified that she would erode women's rights to the point where we are no longer any more than property of our menfolk.

Her views scare the **** out of me.
#87 Sep 02 2008 at 12:50 PM Rating: Good
knoxsouthy wrote:

You have been completely brainwashed by the same people who use children as human shields. How does it feel?

Israel has as much right to that land as any of the Palestinians. They don't do any of those things you said, the same way the US military doesn't target civilians. Now if a farm is home to 10 radical muslims with ak 47's and rocket launchers and there happen to be a few women and children in the same house feeding them and getting their supplies; guess what? They're fair game.

Quote:
The reason they are throwing rocks and blowing themselves up at checkpoints is because they are the victims of an illegal military occupation of horrific proportions


Wow! You're so f*cking stupid it hurts my eyes to read such bs. They are blowing themselves up because their mulah told them to, that's it. Muslims, and this includes Palestinians, have been trying to exterminate the jews for a thousand years. Thinking this has something to do with anything beyond that illustrates just how brainwashed you really are.

Muslims want all Jews dead. Jews don't want to be exterminated. Jews respond with a superior military to wipe out the encroaching threat. Seems pretty simple even to someone as completely brain dead as yourself.


And they have that superior military because of US Support. Btw, if Israel has the right to that land, and if killing Palestinians is what gets the job done and is justified, then I'm guessing you're in support of, say, China giving weapons and training to Native Americans so they can take back their country too?

#88 Sep 02 2008 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
knoxsouthy wrote:
Belkira,

I thought you were for womens rights? So because a woman is pro-life and conservative she's going to reduce women to slaves?

Come on now, I thought you had more sense than that.



She certainly isn't going to help further women. At least Biden is for closing the wage gap.

Pro-life takes away a woman's right to choose. If a woman is raped and impregnated, Mrs. Palin would have her carry that child to term. I consider that slavery of a sort.

I've heard she's for abstinence only sex education. That only furthers the chance that a female child will end up pregnant.

She is also all for teaching creationism and intelligent design along side evolution in science class. This isn't just about keeping women dumb.

I find absolutely nothing about her that would help women out, nor anything that would help our country as a whole.
#89 Sep 02 2008 at 12:55 PM Rating: Good
*
127 posts
Knoxsouthy wrote:
Is it out of bounds to kill women who provide aid/comfort to those terrorist that make IED's designed to murder US soldiers?


Given how this woman would not be taking an active part in hostilities...

Geneva Conventions wrote:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture


Yes. Yes it would be out of bounds.

Also,
Knoxsouthy wrote:
They purposely target civilians whereas the US military does not.


If a US soldier kills this woman, then they are targeting a civilian.
#90 Sep 02 2008 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxsouthy wrote:
You people are terrified of what she brings to the table
Incompetance and anti-Americanism?

Here's a quote from her party's founder, Joe Vogler:
Good ole Joe wrote:
I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions.
Sounds like a real ole fashioned American political party she was part of, huh?

Edited, Sep 2nd 2008 3:53pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Sep 02 2008 at 12:58 PM Rating: Decent
knoxsouthy wrote:
You people are terrified of what she brings to the table


Sorry, even though I'm sure it is quite large, I'm not scared of her ******.
#95 Sep 02 2008 at 1:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxsouthy wrote:
I know they aren't as mainstream as the weatherman underground where Obama actually talked policy with the founder.
Aw, there ya go trying to hide behind Ayers again. Can't defend Palin's past but you can scurry and hide from it.

Whatever soothes your conscious when you vote for a woman who wants to break America apart Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Sep 02 2008 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxsouthy wrote:
What can't take the heat?
Better than you, it seems since you've spent the whole thread refusing to even mention Palin's anti-American connections. I mean, hell, at least I made some comments about Ayers. You just run and hide and cower.

It's cool though. You're a Republican. No one expected better of you.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Sep 02 2008 at 1:23 PM Rating: Decent
Hey knox, good job totally ignoring my analogy about China and Native Americans. I guess it's not ok for a group of people to gain support from one country to take back land that has been seized from them by another country unless one of those countries is America?
#100 Sep 02 2008 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
*
127 posts
Knoxsouthy wrote:
If a woman aids and abets the enemy they are no longer a civilian. Not only that but they're aiding and abetting enemies who aren't uniformed therefore not readily identifiable. I know this is probably confusing you.


Well then those terrorists aren't attacking civilians either, by that definition. Aren't Americans aiding and abetting the US Army? I guess that means they're not civilians anymore...
#101 Sep 02 2008 at 1:26 PM Rating: Excellent
knoxsouthy wrote:
And abortion takes away a childs right to live. But havn't you heard Obama is for really late term abortions? Basically Obama supports pulling the child out of the womb asking the girl if she wants it, if not then just chucking the baby in a trash can.


I'm for making partial birth abortion illegal... if you have a stipulation for the mother's life. As of right now, that doesn't exist. It's a damn crime that it's not written into the ban as it stands now, and it just shows how much a republican values an unborn child's life over a woman's life.

Quote:
Believe it or not some parents don't think it's the duty of the govn to teach their children about sex.


Pick one: Does the government have the duty to force a woman to have a child? Or does the government have a duty to provide for those uneducated women who's parents didn't bother to explain sex to them and they have a ton of kids on welfare? Or does the government have the duty to teach these uneducated children how to not be a burden on said government?

There has to be accountability somewhere. And if the government's responsibility is first to it's citizens, as I believe you said earlier, then I would think that teaching these kids about sex would be a high priority.

Quote:
I guess working women that raise families, keep a husband, and work aren't someone other women should look up to. You would much rather have the disfunctional Clintons in there. Or the Obama's that are against school choice, even though their children attend very private schools.


No, I do not look up to this woman. Nor would I want my daughter to look up to her if I had one. I would much rather my daughter look up to a woman who is able to work, have a family, and still not under value other women.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 153 All times are in CST
Gidono, Anonymous Guests (152)