I need help with this whole "loyalty oath" thing.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Wiffle claims that in '04 if you wanted to attend a Bush rally you were "required" to sign a "loyalty oath".

 

According to him by signing this you "promised" to vote for him, were required to "prove you are a registered Republican", and "promise not to criticize, boo, disrupt or challenge the President in any way."

 

I thought this was a little over the top so I asked for a link to said "loyalty oath". Snoopy brought this link:

 

http://protestzone.com/images/loyaltyoath.jpg

 

 

and claims this proves Wiffle's claims. I don't see the following anywhere on the form:

 

1. A reference to an oath of any kind, much less one of loyalty

2. A requirement to prove you are a Rep.

3. A requirement to promise to vote for Bush

4. A requirement to promise not to criticize, boo, or disrupt Bush.

 

I also don't see anything that proves this was ever used by Bush.

 

What I do see is this line:

 

I (insert name here) "do hereby endorse Bush for reelection of the United States"

 

This line makes no sense, and makes me think this whole link is Bullchit.

 

I'm still open to look at the so-called "loyalty oath", I'm curious to see what has Wiffle's panties in a twist.

 

 

 

Countdown until Snoopy shows up to about me "spinning" this.

[Angry White Male 0]

They won't show because you owned them so badly.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I got the exact response I expected from you Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls.................nothing. I guess we can put this whole "loyalty oath" bullshittery to rest.

 

[Snoopy1 0]

I thought this was a little over the top so I asked for a link to said "loyalty oath". Snoopy brought this link:

 

http://protestzone.com/images/loyaltyoath.jpg

and claims this proves Wiffle's claims.

 

 

Link to me saying this proved wiffles claims, or just another RP lie?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Link to me saying this proved wiffles claims, or just another RP lie?

 

I guess when I said I would like to see the "loyalty oath" Wiffle was talking about and you posted a link saying it showed said "loyalty oath".

 

Moron.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Link to me saying this proved wiffles claims, or just another RP lie?

 

Oh so now you are saying you were arguing WITH ReclinerPilot the whole time. You didnt by any chance give a speech at Columbia University on Monday did you? Nutjob.

[wiffleball 4,790]

I was out yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I showed you a story (with names, dates and facts) where a 64 y.o. veteran was disallowed to see the President - even though he had a ticket - all because of his party affiliation. - And that alone should be enough to outrage you. I then proceeded to tell you that you could google and find all kinds of different stories on the subect. I'd be more than happy to walk you through this if you had made any kind of effort to research this on your own, but 2 days later, you've done nothing, you're just trolling. deliberately obtuse. And, honestly, while there are some folks here that I have no problem with spending a couple of hours on a 'net back and forth, they're usually the types who at least do their own research.

 

So, if you can pull some decent research about the subject from multiple sources, and form some sort of fact-based opinion of your own, I may play along. But, honestly, I don't see you putting up the effort. Heck, I even provided you with the counter-argument and you haven't even picked THAT up. We know you're a troll and an alias. We know you just go deliberately obtuse (like Torrid) whever the facts are laid right in your face, so I just don't think anybody (including me) sees as worth the time or effort anymore.

 

But feel free to prove me wrong about you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

But feel free to prove me wrong about you.

 

So far you have not brought a single link to any "loyalty oath", much less anything that requires all the things you claimed it required.

 

Until you do you are just blowing smoke out of your a$$. Thanks for playing.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I was out yesterday, but I'm pretty sure I showed you a story (with names, dates and facts) where a 64 y.o. veteran was disallowed to see the President - even though he had a ticket - all because of his party affiliation. - And that alone should be enough to outrage you. I then proceeded to tell you that you could google and find all kinds of different stories on the subect. I'd be more than happy to walk you through this if you had made any kind of effort to research this on your own, but 2 days later, you've done nothing, you're just trolling. deliberately obtuse. And, honestly, while there are some folks here that I have no problem with spending a couple of hours on a 'net back and forth, they're usually the types who at least do their own research.

 

So, if you can pull some decent research about the subject from multiple sources, and form some sort of fact-based opinion of your own, I may play along. But, honestly, I don't see you putting up the effort. We know you're a troll and an alias. We know you just go deliberately obtuse (like Torrid) whever the facts are laid right in your face, so I just don't think anybody (including me) sees as worth the time or effort anymore.

 

But feel free to prove me wrong about you.

 

 

Blabbity frickin blabbity, you got nothin.

 

Nothing you said about a reference to an oath of any kind, much less one of loyalty...a requirement to prove you are a Rep....a requirement to promise to vote for Bush....a requirement to promise not to criticize, boo, or disrupt Bush....was true. So why is the onus still on RP to prove you wrong any further?

[wiffleball 4,790]

So far you have not brought a single link to any "loyalty oath", much less anything that requires all the things you claimed it required.

 

Until you do you are just blowing smoke out of your a$$. Thanks for playing.

 

I posted it 2 days ago axxhole. You're claiming it's "Bullchit" when oth the RNC & the President's own spokesman admitted the use of such forms as a basis for admission. - Crassic.

 

...Further proving you're just not woth the time.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I don't know a whole lot about this loyalty oath thing...

 

But I will say, it may not be so crazy when you think about it. I would think most politicians would like to minimize any chance of some liberal/conservative nutjob from interrupting a speech. I've seen crazy people do it to Bill Clinton and I've seen the ridiculous "code pink" ladies do it to Bush. Either way, any politician if, he/she were smart ...would probably want to prevent it.

[hoytdwow 202]

Republicans Sign Along the Dotted Line

 

By Dana Milbank

Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page A05

 

I pledge allegiance to the . . . candidate?

 

Political campaigns are always eager to keep hecklers out of their pep rallies, but the Republican National Committee took that desire to a new level last week, requiring supporters to sign an oath of loyalty before receiving tickets to Saturday's New Mexico rally featuring Vice President Cheney.

 

 

The Albuquerque Journal reported on Friday that people seeking tickets to the Cheney event who could not be identified as GOP partisans -- contributors or volunteers -- were told they could not receive tickets unless they signed an endorsement form saying "I, (full name) . . . do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." The form warns that signers "are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."

 

The paper quoted a Republican official saying a "Democrat operative group" was trying to infiltrate the limited-seating event -- although the party apparently turned away uncommitted voters who simply wanted to hear Cheney speak.

 

RNC communications director Jim Dyke defended the practice on Friday. "Maybe we should start having joint fundraisers with the DNC," he mused. "Please."

 

Link

[akaoni 0]

Some good reads:

 

Washington Post

Boston Globe

Slate

Albuquerque Journal

Rolling Stone

 

All 5 on the front page if you Google bush loyalty pledge.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I posted it 2 days ago axxhole.

 

Um, no you didn't. You posted links to blogs and such talking about it, but you didn't link to anything that remotely required what you claimed the "loyalty oath" required.

 

Keep spinning, crawfishing, and lying.....................

[Snoopy1 0]

I guess when I said I would like to see the "loyalty oath" Wiffle was talking about and you posted a link saying it showed said "loyalty oath".

 

Moron.

 

Evil Number produces three links.

MDC replies

You respond to him, I quote that post, and provide the link.

 

If that wasn't clear enough,

The articles that several geeks mentioned were referencing this document.

 

No where did I say that the document I produced was the same one Wiffle made mention to. Anyone with half-a- brain(understands why you wouldn't get it) would see by following the quotes backwards I was referencing Evil number. Your above statement is another RP lie.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Some good reads:

 

Washington Post

Boston Globe

Slate

Albuquerque Journal

Rolling Stone

 

All 5 on the front page if you Google bush loyalty pledge.

 

Hey there akorni, please check this thread out and get back to me. Just in case ya missed it, im sure it was an oversight.

 

Also, its amazing what some (obviously non biased) journalists choose to call a sheet of paper used to weed out batsh!t liberal hell raisers. Nowhere have I seen a paper titled "Loyalty Oath" and nowhere have I seen any requirements that remotely resemble the trash that Waffleboy spewed except for "endorsing the Pres." which is a far cry from a "promissory" note to swear you will vote for him.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, which is putting on Saturday's event, confirmed that those interested in seeing Cheney were asked to sign an endorsement form if they couldn't be verified as Bush-Cheney supporters.

He said campaign workers got such verification by checking to see whether, among other things, someone has contributed money or volunteered for the campaign. When asked whether workers were also checking the party affiliation of those asking for tickets, he said that was a possibility.

 

 

An endorsement form provided to the Journal by Random says: "I, (full name) ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush."

 

So, other than the actual language OF the form, the fact that the RNC spokesman confirming that indeed the form along with whether they contributed money and/or their party affiliation were all criterion for admission...

 

Yeah, nothing.

 

 

Now RP: You've had two days, link to any Republican Denying that these forms were used at these events??

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Some good reads:

 

Washington Post

Boston Globe

Slate

Albuquerque Journal

Rolling Stone

 

All 5 on the front page if you Google bush loyalty pledge.

 

 

Great job!!!!

 

5 links referring to this mysterous "loyalty oath". That's not hard to find. What seems to be elusive is the actual "loyalty oath" that requires all the things Wiffle claims it requires.

 

That's what I would like to see.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Um, no you didn't. You posted links to blogs and such talking about it,

 

Here's the link I posted you moron. Doesn't look like a blog, or 'such'. to me.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...at_rnc_rallies/

 

In fact, right there in that story both the RNC and the Prez's own spokeperson confirmed use of the form as a means of admission.

 

This would be the part about "deliberately obtuse" that I mentioned earlier. It's just focking tiresome.

 

You know my favorite part about the RNC's "endorsement form"?

 

They couldn't even spell "Hereby" correctly.

 

No wonder the half-wits on this bored like them so much.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Now RP: You've had two days, link to any Republican Denying that these forms were used at these events??

 

I never claimed a form wasn't used.

 

I called bullchit on your claims about the list of requirements contained in the form, and the fact "loyalty" and/or "oath" isn't mentioned on the form Snoopy linked to.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Wow...love when a hack calls out others...then gets completely beat down.

 

And Boz...are you just RP's little cheerleader? Are you like the little yip yip dog who is always following the bigger cartoon dog?

Though said...cause its not as if RP is a big dog of any kind.

 

Cue the calling me a liberal, demwit, muslim lover...and so on (predictable crap of course)

[Sho Nuff 720]

Great job!!!!

 

5 links referring to this mysterous "loyalty oath". That's not hard to find. What seems to be elusive is the actual "loyalty oath" that requires all the things Wiffle claims it requires.

 

That's what I would like to see.

 

So you think these articles are referring to a fake form?

Is this your argument? Really?

 

You wonder why people compare you to torrid?

[Boz/BoFan 0]

Wow...love when a hack calls out others...then gets completely beat down.

 

And Boz...are you just RP's little cheerleader? Are you like the little yip yip dog who is always following the bigger cartoon dog?

Though said...cause its not as if RP is a big dog of any kind.

 

Cue the calling me a liberal, demwit, muslim lover...and so on (predictable crap of course)

 

Quality post here. You may have very well just definitively answered all the riddles of the cosmos.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So you think these articles are referring to a fake form?

Is this your argument? Really?

 

You wonder why people compare you to torrid?

 

 

 

Until I see something that says it's a "loyalty oath", I mean besides an article. I'm looking for the actual form people signed. So far the only one you morons have brought is Snoopy's. And nowhere in it is "loyalty oath" used, nowhere does it require any of the other things Wiffle claims.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Until I see something that says it's a "loyalty oath", I mean besides an article. I'm looking for the actual form people signed. So far the only one you morons have brought is Snoopy's. And nowhere in it is "loyalty oath" used, nowhere does it require any of the other things Wiffle claims.

 

Thanks torridpilot...you are a freakin republican clone of him...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So you think these articles are referring to a fake form?

Is this your argument? Really?

 

So if I link to an article everything in said article is true????

 

 

Is this your argument? Really?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I have a few appts to get to, so I will leave you Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls to search for a copy of this "loyalty oath" that inlcudes the following:

 

1. A reference to an oath of any kind, much less one of loyalty

2. A requirement to prove you are a Rep.

3. A requirement to promise to vote for Bush

4. A requirement to promise not to criticize, boo, or disrupt Bush.

 

 

Good luck, Boys.

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

So if I link to an article everything in said article is true????

Is this your argument? Really?

 

Yeah, cause it was just one article huh?

 

How many people admitting the form was used do you need before you realize it was a real thing?

 

And you are lying about what wiffle first claimed...here is the link

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...t&p=3318000

 

And the quote

 

Wanna think of a little irony?

When George Bush speaks to his own citizens at a 'town hall' event like this, attendees have been required to sign a "loyalty oath" endorsing the President (or VP), promising to vote for him, prove that you are a registered Republican and/or promising not to criticize, boo, 'disrupt' or challenge the President in any way.

You needed to sign no such document to attend this event.

Where is this claim that the oath says you must agree to vote for him? It clearly says "endorse"...if it was edited...it was before you quoted it here...

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...t&p=3318099

 

The rest of it may or may not be in there...but the endorsement is in there according to several links given to you now.

 

Get over it...you called him out...you were wrong. Nothing new here.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I have a few appts to get to, so I will leave you Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls to search for a copy of this "loyalty oath" that inlcudes the following:

 

1. A reference to an oath of any kind, much less one of loyalty

2. A requirement to prove you are a Rep.

3. A requirement to promise to vote for Bush

4. A requirement to promise not to criticize, boo, or disrupt Bush.

Good luck, Boys.

 

 

1. THe articles refer to it as a loyalty oath...which is why it was quoted by wiff....you lose there.

2. Not sure yet.

3. Link to wiffle claiming in the original quote from him that you must promise to vote for bush?...you lose again.

4. Not sure yet.

 

Good luck...

[Sho Nuff 720]

I guess I should bump this every hour or so like RP likes to do when he gets no reply.

[Evil number 0]

The liberal Fox News:

 

Bush campaign officials have acknowledged efforts to keep hecklers out and that, on at least one occasion, some Democrats who signed up to attend a speech by Vice President ###### Cheney were asked to sign a pledge endorsing Bush.

[DAVID RUFFIN 2]

Give it up guys...Recliner has been ###### slapped and he knows it. I'm surprised he's prolonging the agony of defeat.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

1. THe articles refer to it as a loyalty oath...which is why it was quoted by wiff....you lose there.

2. Not sure yet.

3. Link to wiffle claiming in the original quote from him that you must promise to vote for bush?...you lose again.

4. Not sure yet.

 

Good luck...

 

1. Lots of articles refer to it as such. So far none of you morons have shown the actual "loyalty oath" in question.

2. See #1

3. See link below (you lose again, moron)

4. See #1

 

wiffleball

 

View Member Profile Sep 24 2007, 03:04 PM Post #13

 

 

FF Geek

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 20269

Joined: 13-August 01

Member No.: 6603

 

 

 

Wanna think of a little irony?

 

 

 

When George Bush speaks to his own citizens at a 'town hall' event like this, attendees have been required to sign a "loyalty oath" endorsing the President (or VP), promising to vote for him, prove that you are a registered Republican and/or promising not to criticize, boo, 'disrupt' or challenge the President in any way.

 

 

 

You needed to sign no such document to attend this event.

 

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...t=0&start=0

 

Oh Mr. Ruffin, the only way for me to be biatch slapped in this thread is for one of you Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls to actually come up with something that says what Wiffle claims it says. Until then you retards are just involved in a Demwitmoveon.org Party troll circle jerk.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I guess I should bump this every hour or so like RP likes to do when he gets no reply.

 

Go ahead and bump away. This is just the type of response I was expecting. A whole lotta whining and zero to back up your Demwitmoveon.org Party troll position.

 

Found that "loyalty oath" yet??

[Recliner Pilot 61]

When George Bush speaks to his own citizens at a 'town hall' event like this, attendees have been required to sign a "loyalty oath" endorsing the President (or VP), promising to vote for him, prove that you are a registered Republican and/or promising not to criticize, boo, 'disrupt' or challenge the President in any way.

 

Where is this claim that the oath says you must agree to vote for him?

 

Um, right there in your own post Moron.

[Angry White Male 0]

Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls getting owned up in here!

 

for all those just tuning in: wiffleb!tch said that the loyalty oaths required people to promise to vote for Bush, but the loyalty oaths actually didn't require that at all! AHAHAHHAHAHA!

 

All the loyalty oaths required was that you ENDORSE GWB for re-election, and consent to release of your name as an endorser of Bush-Cheney. See the difference, dummies?

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

1. Lots of articles refer to it as such. So far none of you morons have shown the actual "loyalty oath" in question.

2. See #1

3. See link below (you lose again, moron)

4. See #1

 

wiffleball

 

View Member Profile Sep 24 2007, 03:04 PM Post #13

FF Geek

Group: Members

Posts: 20269

Joined: 13-August 01

Member No.: 6603

Wanna think of a little irony?

When George Bush speaks to his own citizens at a 'town hall' event like this, attendees have been required to sign a "loyalty oath" endorsing the President (or VP), promising to vote for him, prove that you are a registered Republican and/or promising not to criticize, boo, 'disrupt' or challenge the President in any way.

You needed to sign no such document to attend this event.

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...t=0&start=0

 

Oh Mr. Ruffin, the only way for me to be biatch slapped in this thread is for one of you Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls to actually come up with something that says what Wiffle claims it says. Until then you retards are just involved in a Demwitmoveon.org Party troll circle jerk.

 

You mean like article after article claiming you must sign it and endorse the president? As he claimed?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Um, right there in your own post Moron.

 

Why do you also ignore the parts that have been proven by several articles?

Because you think every single word of what someone wrote should be proven?

Like people actually have a copy of the focking thing?

 

My mistake on that...I saw endorse and quit reading.

 

Does not change the fact that you are still a torrid lite fool...who has been owned by several articles now.

 

Troll on.

At least you have Angry White Male and Boz coming in to support you and call people demwits...

[Sho Nuff 720]

Demwitmoveon.org Party trolls getting owned up in here!

 

for all those just tuning in: wiffleb!tch said that the loyalty oaths required people to promise to vote for Bush, but the loyalty oaths actually didn't require that at all! AHAHAHHAHAHA!

 

All the loyalty oaths required was that you ENDORSE GWB for re-election, and consent to release of your name as an endorser of Bush-Cheney. See the difference, dummies?

 

 

He actually claimed the second part too...at least you admit that...RP is still having trouble.

[Sho Nuff 720]

But...here you go for some more....

 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...at_rnc_rallies/

 

A Republican National Committee practice of having people sign a form endorsing President Bush or pledging to vote for him in November before being issued tickets for RNC-sponsored rallies is raising concern among voters.

 

RNC spokesman Yier Shi said RNC campaign rallies are not official visits, but party events designed to energize the Republican base . He said everyone is welcome at the rallies as long as they support President Bush.

 

If this was the only article mentioning it...you would have a point...too bad its not.

 

But I know...this is not the actual Oath so you will keep spinning...because this article has already been posted for you and you still deny its existence.