NationStates Jolt Archive

The 'cunts' in the title is for comedic purposes.

Anyway, let us mock those whose political preferences we disagree with...

EDIT
If yes, why?

I'm 90% sure that's what NSG is all about.

Whose president? Britain doesn't have one and I'd probably get in trouble if I tried to vote in a foreign one.

Whose president? Britain doesn't have one and I'd probably get in trouble if I tried to vote in a foreign one.

That joke is plagarism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519003&highlight=proggresica+why+won%27t+vote).

That joke is plagarism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519003&highlight=proggresica+why+won%27t+vote).

This thread is spam.

That joke is plagarism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519003&highlight=proggresica+why+won%27t+vote).

It wasn't so much a joke as a criticism. The issue being that the poll does not differentiate "No" into "No, because I don't like him" and "No, because I can't".

Once upon a time, before he lost his mind.....

But now? No.

Whose president? Britain doesn't have one and I'd probably get in trouble if I tried to vote in a foreign one.
Piffle! In the US we have Disney Characters, dead people and dead Disney Characters vote on a regular basis, I'm sure we could make room for a brit or 60,609,153.
This thread is spam.
How dare you raise my hopes with the promise of a helpful and informative link, and then provide only an underlined word. You, sir, are a monster (http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a36/Fiddlebottoms/Dracul_by_bela.jpg).

I'm voting for a short stack with chocolate chips.

McCain is just a clone of Bush who talks about stuff he knows nothing about.

Versus Hillary or Obama, sure.

In the primary, nah. Then again, I'm not allowed to vote in the primaries anyway. So I'll either be voting for him or someone else, but not 'against' him.

Hell no. He got 21 innocent Iraqis killed for his photo stunt to show how the failed surge was succeding.

Depends on the other choice. Among the Reps he's as good as they've got. All of the Reps are going to be dragging a dead horse with the President they have been following. Now if he goes against Hillary, it'll be close. If he goes against Edwards, he has a slight problem. If he goes against Obama, depends on the black thing in the South. He may take the south based on that, which would put him in great shape. Any of the others, probably win on name recognition.

Depends on the other choice. Among the Reps he's as good as they've got. All of the Reps are going to be dragging a dead horse with the President they have been following. Now if he goes against Hillary, it'll be close. If he goes against Edwards, he has a slight problem. If he goes against Obama, depends on the black thing in the South. He may take the south based on that, which would put him in great shape. Any of the others, probably win on name recognition.

Not sure what you mean by the whole "black thing" in the South, but blacks already vote 90% democrat, and are basically a non-factor in the South. All of the Southern states will go GOP this year as usual barring something supremely unusual. And of course, the South gains electoral votes this year, which also looks quite nice for whichever candidate the GOP ends up with.

If asked in 2000, I would have said yes in a heartbeat.

Now? Fat chance. Sucking up to Evangelicals = instant loss of my vote.

The 'cunts' in the title is for comedic purposes.

Anyway, let us mock those whose political preferences we disagree with...

EDIT
If yes, why?



Thanks for the flamebait. :rolleyes: How would you like if I mocked people who wanted to vote for Hilary Clinton? I wouldn't, but If I did I bet you would be more than pissed. Mocking people is never the right way to go.


FYI, I voted yes. I would rather vote for him than a democrat. And I am NOT mocking anybody, just stating I would.

Thanks for the flamebait. :rolleyes: How would you like if I mocked people who wanted to vote for Hilary Clinton? I wouldn't, but If I did I bet you would be more than pissed. Mocking people is never the right way to go.


FYI, I voted yes. I would rather vote for him than a democrat. And I am NOT mocking anybody, just stating I would.

Even though Mr. McCain supports a failed strategy in Iraq? Even though he panders to the far right "Christian" movement? Even though his publicity stunt yesterday got 21 people killed?

21 Shia market workers were ambushed, bound and shot dead north of the capital. The victims came from the Baghdad market visited the previous day by John McCain, the US presidential candidate, who said that an American security plan in the capital was starting to show signs of progress.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1604931.ece

Even though Mr. McCain supports a failed strategy in Iraq? Even though he panders to the far right "Christian" movement? Even though his publicity stunt yesterday got 21 people killed?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1604931.ece

You think it's reasonable to blame McCain for a terrorist attack, subsequent to his visit, on a soft civilian target? McCain personally? That's pretty telling if so.

Even though his publicity stunt yesterday got 21 people killed?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1604931.ece

How did his visit in any way cause their deaths? All it says is that the people who got killed were workers at the same market he visited.

I'd vote for pancakes, anyway. Why? If they abused their power, all I'd have to do is eat them. Problem solved! :D

I'd vote for pancakes, anyway. Why? If they abused their power, all I'd have to do is eat them. Problem solved! :D

screw impeachment, buffet!

You think it's reasonable to blame McCain for a terrorist attack, subsequent to his visit, on a soft civilian target? McCain personally? That's pretty telling if so.

He made it a target in the name of a faked photo-shoot.

How did his visit in any way cause their deaths? All it says is that the people who got killed were workers at the same market he visited.

He made them a target with his photo shoot. By using it as a symbol of "peace" in Iraq, he made it a target for insurgent groups.

Thanks for the flamebait. :rolleyes: How would you like if I mocked people who wanted to vote for Hilary Clinton? I wouldn't, but If I did I bet you would be more than pissed. Mocking people is never the right way to go.


FYI, I voted yes. I would rather vote for him than a democrat. And I am NOT mocking anybody, just stating I would.

Obviously you aren't familar with the concept of a joke. How is it possible to not tell I was being sarcastic with the sentence "Anyway, let us mock those whose political preferences we disagree with..."?

He made it a target in the name of a faked photo-shoot.

He made them a target with his photo shoot. By using it as a symbol of "peace" in Iraq, he made it a target for insurgent groups.

Unless he improperly named individuals, the blame is with the terrorists. Political speech that results in violence where no violence is intentionally provoked isn't immoral. I doubt you'd make the same charge against Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama, despite their being "responsible" by simply being present at a place, for later violence. None of their historic speeches were individually essential to their cause, and McCain didn't need to speak for his where and when he did, but holding a speaker responsible for a terrorist attack where they aren't trying to provoke one is absurd. Foreign diplomats aren't going to speak from bunkers as a precaution..

Unless he improperly named individuals, the blame is with the terrorists. Political speech that results in violence where no violence is intentionally provoked isn't immoral. I doubt you'd make the same charge against Martin Luther King, Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama, despite their being "responsible" by simply being present at a place, for later violence. None of their historic speeches were individually essential to their cause, and McCain didn't need to speak for his where and when he did, but holding a speaker responsible for a terrorist attack where they aren't trying to provoke one is absurd. Foreign diplomats aren't going to speak from bunkers as a precaution..

McCain should have known better than to create a target (which is what he did). He chose to create a target, all to get media attention for his useless (and failed) plan.

What do you expect when groups who use the media as a way to undercut morale see you parading around, pretending that you don't have 100 soldiers and 2 blackhawk helicopters along on your stroll, and saying that a place is safe. Of course they are going to attack that target.

McCain had no reason to be there, other than posturing about his failed surge. His was not a mission of diplomacy (and diplomats speak from the green zone, for the most part, in Iraq, because no where else is safe for them), he not only didn't need to be there, he should not have been there. He created a target because of his greed for media attention. I cannot imagine a more damning choice.

screw impeachment, buffet!

:D

I've said it before, and I will likely say it again many times, but after the Military commissions act of 2006, if it were up to me McCaine would never work again. He personally compromised the ideals of our nation. I honestly don't understand why I seem to be the only one pissed off at this.

McCain should have known better than to create a target (which is what he did). He chose to create a target, all to get media attention for his useless (and failed) plan.

What do you expect when groups who use the media as a way to undercut morale see you parading around, pretending that you don't have 100 soldiers and 2 blackhawk helicopters along on your stroll, and saying that a place is safe. Of course they are going to attack that target.

McCain had no reason to be there, other than posturing about his failed surge. His was not a mission of diplomacy (and diplomats speak from the green zone, for the most part, in Iraq, because no where else is safe for them), he not only didn't need to be there, he should not have been there. He created a target because of his greed for media attention. I cannot imagine a more damning choice.

It's fine that you disagree with his politics and his view of the war, but there's a difference between calling his trip unnecessary and blaming him personally for the attack. Anywhere he speaks in Iraq, the civilians that live there can be attacked subsequent to that time, for whatever reason. If he'd been where he was without an armed guard, he'd probably have been attacked for it even more severely, for lack of precaution, care for bystanders, etc. You can call any political speech a useless photo-op, but assigning blame away from those who actually murdered innocents based on that perception alone is just insufficient in my estimation. Iraqi leadership by all accounts is very wary of our resolve in the war, and it's a legitimate enough purpose for McCain as a possible future president to visit personally, and not just make assurances from Washington. Unless you have them speak from bunkers, there's always going to be risks.. or we can take that line of argument and blame Democrats for the '68 convention (almost purely photo-op, as are all conventions), ad absurdum.

It's fine that you disagree with his politics and his view of the war, but there's a difference between calling his trip unnecessary and blaming him personally for the attack. Anywhere he speaks in Iraq, the civilians that live there can be attacked subsequent to that time, for whatever reason. If he'd been where he was without an armed guard, he'd probably have been attacked for it even more severely, for lack of precaution, care for bystanders, etc. You can call any political speech a useless photo-op, but assigning blame away from those who actually murdered innocents based on that perception alone is just insufficient in my estimation. Iraqi leadership by all accounts is very wary of our resolve in the war, and it's a legitimate enough purpose for McCain as a possible future president to visit personally, and not just make assurances from Washington. Unless you have them speak from bunkers, there's always going to be risks.. or we can blame Democrats for the '68 convention (almost purely photo-op, as are all conventions), ad absurdum.

McCain was not speaking or doing anything of value there. He was not doing anything constructive. He was tying up 100+ soldiers to get pictures taken to proove how "safe" Iraq was (having his 100+ guards edited out of the picture) and how the failed surge was working. He was making a target of a market that the insurgents couldn't possibly ignore.

Unlike the convention of '68 (which, as most conventions are, was an important place for other business for the Democratic party), McCain did not have to be there. He was not serving any legitimate purpose. He was there to score cheap political points at the cost of the Iraqi people and our men and women in uniform. The fault for the riots of '68 falls firmly on the Mayor of Chicago and his hamhanded handling of a delicate protest. This was not a "mishandling" of an event. At best, this was a willfully ignorant attempt at obfuscating public dialogue over the failed surge.

McCain is just a clone of Bush who talks about stuff he knows nothing about.

Kind of redundant, don't you think? :)

I never really liked him, though he used to be decent for a right-winger. Now that he's buddied up with the christ crew, I wouldn't vote for him unless the opposition ticket were Falwell/Robertson.

Doesn't really matter who wins the primaries this year, the 2008 election will come down to a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. South Park called it (four years in advance, even).

McCain was not speaking or doing anything of value there.

Seeing as McCain is a presidential candidate and regional diplomacy more than a little tricky, I can't agree here. If the 'value' of the speech is the overriding moral consideration when some risk of reprisal is present, then I can't really entertain the argument. I can't see applying a 'but-for' standard to the speaker where violence follows political speech, and that's what it seems to boil down to. Again, I'm sure McCain didn't absolutely need to speak where he did, but blaming him is another animal.

Seeing as McCain is a presidential candidate and regional diplomacy more than a little tricky, I can't agree here. If the 'value' of the speech is the overriding moral consideration when some risk of reprisal is present, then I can't really entertain the argument. I can't see applying a 'but-for' standard to the speaker where violence follows political speech, and that's what it seems to boil down to. Again, I'm sure McCain didn't absolutely need to speak where he did, but blaming him is another animal.

This was not a case of "regional diplomacy". This was a photo shoot. He was not reaching out to the Iraqi people. He was not there to negotiate, or attempt to improve the situation. He was there to have a picture taken of him, and to posture about the failed troop surge. Don't obfuscate or attempt to recast his roll. He was there to score partisan political points in an attempt to mischaracterize this failed war to the people of the United States.

There was no value to this action. He placed innocent people at risk to make a political point. That is disgusting and unforgiveable.

This was not a case of "regional diplomacy". This was a photo shoot. He was not reaching out to the Iraqi people. He was not there to negotiate, or attempt to improve the situation. He was there to have a picture taken of him, and to posture about the failed troop surge. Don't obfuscate or attempt to recast his roll. He was there to score partisan political points in an attempt to mischaracterize this failed war to the people of the United States.

There was no value to this action. He placed innocent people at risk to make a political point. That is disgusting and unforgiveable.

I'm not recasting his role in the attack. I've read the same press reports that we all have access to and can understand the ostensible purpose in what he was attempting.. if you don't think his speech was of value, that's your prerogative and I don't reject your view of his motives, only the assignment of blame to him in this case. It's unconscionable in my opinion to blame him personally for the attack simply for having been present at a market frequented by people a group of terrorists decided to hold collectively responsible for that presence. I don't see McCain as the proximate cause of that attack, or even a likely ultimate cause-in-fact. Placing innocent people at risk simply by speaking in an area is not disgusting, it's a fact of life in the arena of political speech, and happens every time a person of any affiliation speaks to some degree, and any time a group congregates to witness an event.

I'm not recasting his role in the attack. I've read the same press reports that we all have access to and can understand the ostensible purpose in what he was attempting.. if you don't think his speech was of value, that's your prerogative and I don't reject your view of his motives, only the assignment of blame to him in this case. It's unconscionable in my opinion to blame him personally for the attack simply for having been present at a market frequented by people a group of terrorists decided to hold collectively responsible for that presence. I don't see McCain as the proximate cause of that attack, or even a likely ultimate cause-in-fact. Placing innocent people at risk simply by speaking in an area is not disgusting, it's a fact of life in the arena of political speech, and happens every time a person of any affiliation speaks to some degree, and any time a group congregates to witness an event.

McCain did not give a speech while he was walking through that market. He was walking through that market to have a picture taken of him to score political points. You are attempting to cast as "speech" what was a disgusting risk to innocent Iraqis and to our troops.

This is not an issue of free speech. McCain had every right to be where he was. This is an issue of him placing Iraqis and our soldiers at risk to have a picture taken to make himself and the failed surge look good. This is a matter of responsibly using our armed forces (something that the Senator is incapable of, apparently), and not placing civilians at risk to score political points. Clearly John McCain is not capable of either. He is unfit to be a Senator, let alone a President.

McCain did not give a speech while he was walking through that market. He was walking through that market to have a picture taken of him to score political points. You are attempting to cast as "speech" what was a disgusting risk to innocent Iraqis and to our troops.

This is not an issue of free speech. McCain had every right to be where he was. This is an issue of him placing Iraqis and our soldiers at risk to have a picture taken to make himself and the failed surge look good. This is a matter of responsibly using our armed forces (something that the Senator is incapable of, apparently), and not placing civilians at risk to score political points. Clearly John McCain is not capable of either. He is unfit to be a Senator, let alone a President.

Even where only a handful of a hundred thousand protesters actually talks into a microphone, all participate in speech, etc. I didn't mean to be ambiguous in using the word, I meant it in the sense that he was visiting the the area as a representative of his government, all symbolism and politics attached. I've already stipulated that his "speech," "appearance," whatever it was, was probably non-essential. I just can't follow that (potential) fact to the point of assigning him blame, as I've said.

Even where only a handful of a hundred thousand protesters actually talks into a microphone, all participate in speech, etc. I didn't mean to be ambiguous in using the word, I meant it in the sense that he was visiting the the area as a representative of his government, all symbolism and politics attached. I've already stipulated that his "speech," "appearance," whatever it was, was probably non-essential. I just can't follow that (potential) fact to the point of assigning him blame, as I've said.


But he really wasn't doing that at all. He was there to have his picture taken, and to try to sell and idea to the American public. The blame was his because he needlessly brought attention to the market, drawing attacks by insurgents attempting to destroy his argument. Moreover, he wasted 100+ U.S. troops, and 2 helicopters to have his little photo-shoot.

But he really wasn't doing that at all. He was there to have his picture taken, and to try to sell and idea to the American public. The blame was his because he needlessly brought attention to the market, drawing attacks by insurgents attempting to destroy his argument. Moreover, he wasted 100+ U.S. troops, and 2 helicopters to have his little photo-shoot.

We're back to the legitimacy of his trip, the display, the use of it for publicity, etc. What I've been trying to say is, it still isn't right to blame him personally for what amounts to a terrorist attack on civilians. That particular market had been a magnet for past attacks, true enough, but McCain's driving through it, shaking hands and such doesn't create a moral "debate" where slaughtering civilians represents a legitimate "answer." Even if it wasn't wise to visit a former hotspot in the insurgency, it's not McCain who should be blamed for the later act. Applying that standard would fail as a rule.

We're back to the legitimacy of his trip, the display, the use of it for publicity, etc. What I've been trying to say is, it still isn't right to blame him personally for what amounts to a terrorist attack on civilians. That particular market had been a magnet for past attacks, true enough, but McCain's driving through it, shaking hands and such doesn't create a moral "debate" where slaughtering civilians represents a legitimate "answer." Even if it wasn't wise to visit a former hotspot in the insurgency, it's not McCain who should be blamed for the later act. Applying that standard would fail as a rule.

Obviously not. I'm not saying that McCain pulled the trigger. I'm saying that his irresponsibility provoked the attacks. His trip was illegitimate (it was a publicity stunt that risked the lives of troops and citizens alike). He did not carry out the attacks, but he should not have provoked them. It was irresponsible, and immoral of him to do so.

Obviously not. I'm not saying that McCain pulled the trigger. I'm saying that his irresponsibility provoked the attacks. His trip was illegitimate (it was a publicity stunt that risked the lives of troops and citizens alike). He did not carry out the attacks, but he should not have provoked them. It was irresponsible, and immoral of him to do so.

There's no disagreement that I can find, then. It's a matter of his weighing of the cost and benefit of such an action. He probably miscalculated here, but could have just as easily achieved what was officially attempting. The matter of characterizing the act as self-serving or genuine is another question.

There's no disagreement that I can find, then. It's a matter of his weighing of the cost and benefit of such an action. He probably miscalculated here, but could have just as easily achieved what was officially attempting. The matter of characterizing the act as self-serving or genuine is another question.

He's a politician. There is no such thing as genuineness in politics. :p