NationStates Jolt Archive

Sept. 14, 2007
Arizona Senator John McCain has taken criticism of anti-war group MoveOn.org to a whole new level: He is suggesting that the organization “ought to be thrown out of this country.”

The liberal advocacy group angered Republicans earlier this week with a full-page ad in the New York Times criticizing Gen. David Petraeus as he prepared to testify before Congress. The ad, which asserted that Petraeus was “cooking the books” on the situation in Iraq carried the headline, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?”

Sources: Yahoo/CBS/OccNEWS
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/politics/main3262322.shtml
LOL.. McCain is losing it.. maybe he is too old for the game.

All this republican whinning reminds me of the Rock-me-amadeus mix @ the daily show :D

source please

This is what happens when people start to take themselves too seriously. *nod*

McCain lost his damn mind 8 years ago.

Iraq Me Dave Petraeus
:D
http%3a//bravenewfilms.org/blog/12424-daily-show-iraq-me-dave-petraeus%3fplay=1

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.E.YO1GKmEBMApXNyoA?p=video+iraq+me+dave+petraeus&y=Search&fr=moz2

source pleasehttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/14/politics/main3262322.shtml

LOL.. McCain is losing it.. maybe he is too old for the game.

All this republican whinning reminds me of the Rock-me-amadeus mix @ the daily show :D

Jesus Henry Christ. (shakes head)

Iraq Me Dave Petraeus
:D
http%3a//bravenewfilms.org/blog/12424-daily-show-iraq-me-dave-petraeus%3fplay=1

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0geu.E.YO1GKmEBMApXNyoA?p=video+iraq+me+dave+petraeus&y=Search&fr=moz2

Damn it, I just got that song out of my head! :headbang:

Anyway, I'm not too shocked by this. McCain is nuts.

Another delusional politician stuck in 2002. :D

Another delusional politician stuck in 2002. :D

Or perhaps the Vietnam War?

What he implied is not new to the US, and seems to be a growing trend. Its the "If you don't agree with my politics, then leave." I hate that sentiment more than anything. Conservatives believe that if you speak out against the ills of the government then you are a traitorous bastard, and should leave the nation. I've been told that I should respect this nation(aka support it with out thinking) or move to Cuba, or Iran. :rolleyes: Idiots.

What he implied is not new to the US, and seems to be a growing trend. Its the "If you don't agree with my politics, then leave." I hate that sentiment more than anything. Conservatives believe that if you speak out against the ills of the government then you are a traitorous bastard, and should leave the nation. I've been told that I should respect this nation(aka support it with out thinking) or move to Cuba, or Iran. :rolleyes: Idiots.

I just love the irony...this country was founded on the basis of being able to dissent and speak out against the government. It's why we have a check on the government in the form of the 2nd Amendment. It's why we have separation of powers. It's why we have free speech.

This is not a dictatorship where dissent is crushed. This is a country that is supposed to encourage it, to make clear what the people really want and that when our government is doing something we really do not want them to do, we want it stopped.

Gotta love the eliminationist rhetoric.

What's sad is I actually thought that the MoveOn.org add was kind of ridiculous. Not the content so much but the "General Betray-Us," I hate that shit. It's childish. Honestly I think if everyone would have shrugged it off it wouldn't have been that big a deal, since the news channels were fellating the General, it would have passed under the rug and even people like me who were prone to siding with it wouldn't have given it much thought. The Daily Show's snipe at the coverage was far more bitting and telling of what was going on.

Ah, but then there's always the crazy. They took something that was childish at worst and went all nutbags.

Well, if you can't motivate the base on your own it must be time to outcrazy each other in an attempt to use a common 'enemy' to do it instead, eh?

McCain is as big a nut as Ron Paul is.

Or perhaps the Vietnam War?

Or better yet, another dimension better known as Washington DC. :p

What's sad is I actually thought that the MoveOn.org add was kind of ridiculous. Not the content so much but the "General Betray-Us," I hate that shit. It's childish. Honestly I think if everyone would have shrugged it off it wouldn't have been that big a deal, since the news channels were fellating the General, it would have passed under the rug and even people like me who were prone to siding with it wouldn't have given it much thought. The Daily Show's snipe at the coverage was far more bitting and telling of what was going on.

Ah, but then there's always the crazy. They took something that was childish at worst and went all nutbags.

Well, if you can't motivate the base on your own it must be time to outcrazy each other in an attempt to use a common 'enemy' to do it instead, eh?
Yeah, MoveOn.Org is a bit messed up in some ways, especially since they're basically partisan Democrats...I definitely don't agree with them all of the time...

But they have the right to say what they want to say, which is the real heart of the issue. Sure, General "Betray-us" is childish, but if that's what they want to say, they can say it. Who are we to tell them not to say it?

...

Well actually we can tell them not to say it, but they don't have to listen. That's the beauty of free speech.

...

Which means McCain can say what he said too. He's still nuts though.

And thus the true Republican ideology - its dictatorial nature - is shown.

Yeah, MoveOn.Org is a bit messed up in some ways, especially since they're basically partisan Democrats...I definitely don't agree with them all of the time...

But they have the right to say what they want to say, which is the real heart of the issue. Sure, General "Betray-us" is childish, but if that's what they want to say, they can say it. Who are we to tell them not to say it?

...

Well actually we can tell them not to say it, but they don't have to listen. That's the beauty of free speech.

...

Which means McCain can say what he said too. He's still nuts though.
Make no mistake, I'm not saying MoveOn.org even shouldn't have done what they did. I think that they should have been less childish, but that's their choice. It would have been a 'meh' if the candidates hadn't gone all ape-shit over it (McCain's not the only one, he's just the ape-shitiest).

The key difference, and you've touched on it, is between saying, "That's silly." and "Get out."

I think the headline was silly. I think saying that they should leave the country is stupid. Neither statement removes the ability of the speaker to say them. "Get out" does.

I lost myself in this pretzel of a post. I got distracted by Animal Planet...ah, lazy Sundays where I thought I had to work but I didn't...rockin'.

McCain is as big a nut as Ron Paul is.
You are running out of candidates to support!! :p

McCain is a traitor to the American people for proposing amnesty to millions of illegals who are residing (Get this - illegally) in our country.

Deporting MoveOn supporters redeems him a bit, but I'm still not liking the guy much.

Or better yet, another dimension better known as Washington DC. :p

I just mentioned Vietnam because McCain fought in the war and was actually a POW there for some time. He might have overreacted to the "General Betray-Us" stuff due to his past military experiences. Or he is just plain crazy.

McCain is a traitor to the American people for proposing amnesty to millions of illegals who are residing (Get this - illegally) in our country.

Deporting MoveOn supporters redeems him a bit, but I'm still not liking the guy much.

Well, your post surely made me ask myself some questions. Among which:

Isn't it anti-American to deport people for their use of free speech?

Didn't the forefathers create the Constitution to protect ESPECIALLY the right to dissent?

Isn't McCain betraying the very principles upon which America stands by suggesting deportation for speech?

Don't dictatorships such as North Korea deport or otherwise punish dissent?

And finally...

Are you trolling, joking, or insane?

Are you trolling,
Ding
joking,
Ding
or insane?
Ding.

Didn't the forefathers create the Constitution to protect ESPECIALLY the right to dissent?

The Constitution could not have anticipated the times we now face in this country. A country is under attack from within and the government is powerless to do anything, paralyzed from within by the same traitorous scum behind the Daily Kos, MoveOn, et cetera.

Isn't McCain betraying the very principles upon which America stands by suggesting deportation for speech?

American principles, including the Constitution could have not possibly foreseen what would happen 230 years in the future.

Don't dictatorships such as North Korea deport or otherwise punish dissent?

And they do a whole host of other unpleasant things. I see deporting such whack jobs as a necessary evil, no matter how unpleasant is.

Are you trolling, joking, or insane?

None of the above. Nice try, though.

American principles, including the Constitution could have not possibly foreseen what would happen 230 years in the future.

Well then, why do we still have the 2nd Amendment? There's no need for it anymore, the government protects you well enough. The founders could have not possibly foreseen what would happen 230 years in the future.

Well then, why do we still have the 2nd Amendment? There's no need for it anymore, the government protects you well enough. The founders could have not possibly foreseen what would happen 230 years in the future.

I am calling fallacy on this, although I am not sure which one. I think it's straw man.

Just because some parts of the Constitution may be obsolete, wrong, or need to be change, doesn't mean the whole thing needs to be overhauled. In my perfect world however, no, the Second Amendment would not be changed. Less of a matter of dissent than self defense, though, if you ask.

Telling you to leave is just their friendly warning. If the criticism continues, I believe next comes waterboarding at Gitmo, then a cage full of hungry rats fastened over your head at the Ministry of Truth.

I'm hoping for Gitmo. I mean, free meals and shelter from the tax payers in America!:D

What he implied is not new to the US, and seems to be a growing trend. Its the "If you don't agree with my politics, then leave." I hate that sentiment more than anything. Conservatives believe that if you speak out against the ills of the government then you are a traitorous bastard, and should leave the nation. I've been told that I should respect this nation(aka support it with out thinking) or move to Cuba, or Iran. :rolleyes: Idiots.


Telling you to leave is just their friendly warning. If the criticism continues, I believe next comes waterboarding at Gitmo, then a cage full of hungry rats fastened over your head at the Ministry of Truth.

LOL.. McCain is losing it.. maybe he is too old for the game.

All this republican whinning reminds me of the Rock-me-amadeus mix @ the daily show :D

And of course later his campaign retracted his statement with this:
Today, the McCain campaign clarified the senator’s comments for CBS News. “Senator McCain, like most Americans, is appalled by the MoveOn.org ad. Last night he expressed his outrage in words that did not convey his intended meaning. What he meant to say was that MoveOn's smear of General Petraeus' character should have no place in the American political debate.”

The Constitution could not have anticipated the times we now face in this country. A country is under attack from within and the government is powerless to do anything, paralyzed from within by the same traitorous scum behind the Daily Kos, MoveOn, et cetera.

American principles, including the Constitution could have not possibly foreseen what would happen 230 years in the future.


The way you're talking, you don't care about your Constitution, and you don't believe in principles. You make an implicit, scripted case for pragmatism-- doing what's necessary here and now, according to the circumstances-- but that's not what it is to be principled. If you have principles, they don't warp and mutate and change to accommodate circumstances, they aren't opportunistic or mutable or contingent on everything "going as anticipated"; principles necessarily resist such externalities. If you have a principle that says "I defend and uphold the right to free speech," then you defend and uphold that right even when it's inconvenient, even when you don't like what's being said. If you only stand by the idea as long as it suits you then you're not being principled. Same concept for a Constitution. By definition it enshrines the ideas that constitute the state, it's the skeleton that everything else is built upon. Disregard some part of it because you want more flexibility in some new circumstance, and you undermine the integrity of the whole thing. And if you think principles and Constitutions aren't important, I look forward to the day that your rights depend on someone else sticking by them.

Snip.

Magnificent! I was hoping you'd answer, I just wanted someone to play with.

I will dissect your arguments.

So, let's play a game, shall we?

It'll be a gameshow-style one, called "what kind of American are you?".

What kind of American are you, if you are willing to sell your country's collective soul AND your fellow Americans for a fake illusion of security?

What kind of American are you, if you're willing to forget every single principle your country ever had, including the right to dissent against decisions that have been proven to make your country LESS safe?

What kind of American are you, if you're willing to force people to be deported for speaking their minds with the sole excuse that you're "still not as bad as" North Korea?

What kind of American are you, if you're willing to ignore the will of the majority whenever it suits your own skewered beliefs, knowing that your country is based on democracy?

What kind of American are you, that are so willing to forgo everything that makes your country work as such, including the rule of law?

What kind of American are you, spitting on the Constitution, wanting to rip it to tiny shreds, all the while calling the ones that FOLLOW IT traitors?

Answer: You're a traitor. You're willing to sell the very soul of your country dirt cheap. You're willing to deprive others from the right of free speech, for no reason other than your fear. You're willing to forget everything that made your country a country and that once made you human, just out of sheer, abject fear.

I don't know if I should despise you, pity you or buy you a teddy bear and a clown night-light to allay your fears of those evil men hiding under your bed trying to steal your chocolate.

I am calling fallacy on this, although I am not sure which one. I think it's straw man.

Just because some parts of the Constitution may be obsolete, wrong, or need to be change, doesn't mean the whole thing needs to be overhauled. In my perfect world however, no, the Second Amendment would not be changed. Less of a matter of dissent than self defense, though, if you ask.

Selective Constitution.

I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose what parts "count."

And of course later his campaign retracted his statement with this:
Today, the McCain campaign clarified the senator’s comments for CBS News. “Senator McCain, like most Americans, is appalled by the MoveOn.org ad. Last night he expressed his outrage in words that did not convey his intended meaning. What he meant to say was that MoveOn's smear of General Petraeus' character should have no place in the American political debate.”

Wait, the McCain campaign is speaking for most Americans now? That's... *In the same tone of a mother that just heard her child claim they saw Superman dancing with Santa Claus* ... "interesting".

Selective Constitution.

I'm pretty sure you can't pick and choose what parts "count."

Well, he's right in one part: A government that abolished the First Amendment would be so repulsive that the Second Amendment would be needed in order to drive the traitors that spat upon the Constitution out of power.

What kind of American are you, if you are willing to sell your country's collective soul AND your fellow Americans for a fake illusion of security?

What kind of American are you, if you're willing to forget every single principle your country ever had, including the right to dissent against decisions that have been proven to make your country LESS safe?

What kind of American are you, if you're willing to force people to be deported for speaking their minds with the sole excuse that you're "still not as bad as" North Korea?

What kind of American are you, if you're willing to ignore the will of the majority whenever it suits your own skewered beliefs, knowing that your country is based on democracy?

What kind of American are you, that are so willing to forgo everything that makes your country work as such, including the rule of law?

What kind of American are you, spitting on the Constitution, wanting to rip it to tiny shreds, all the while calling the ones that FOLLOW IT traitors?

I can answer this whole thing in one post: strawman. Just because I want MoveOn supporters deported does not make any of what you said true about me. Try again.

I don't know if I should despise you, pity you or buy you a teddy bear and a clown night-light to allay your fears of those evil men hiding under your bed trying to steal your chocolate.

I'll accept. If only so I can pawn it off at a yard sale so it's extra money in my pocket.

I can answer this whole thing in one post: strawman. Just because I want MoveOn supporters deported does not make any of what you said true about me. Try again.

No, it's not a strawman. You want MoveOn supporters deported because you don't like what they have to say. The First Amendment protects people from being deported because you don't like what they have to say. You'd like to see it suspended to give you a false sense of security. Ergo, yes, you're willing to sell your Constitution, the very self and soul of your country, dirt cheap. As for the lamp, Annie, you should keep it, since you're so afraid of the "scary-wary tewwowists".

LOL.. McCain is losing it.. maybe he is too old for the game.

All this republican whinning reminds me of the Rock-me-amadeus mix @ the daily show :D

He hasn't lost a thing - he is attempting to pander to the religious right/fanatically nutty patriotic; basically its the old story of targeting a whole bunch of niche groups rather than trying to go for the 'big group' sitting in the middle - partially because Rudy has that already sorted out.

Personally, McCain would be a great vice-president but who ever is running his campaign is doing a cruddy job at it.

Man. I have a certain degree of respect for McCain, but this is just freaking crazy.

John McCain's a Bushevik and so is Lame Bums. End of story.

John McCain's a Bushevik and so is Lame Bums. End of story.

The only reason why George Bush gets even a shred of support from me is because of the alternatives, which if even possible, are worse.

And thus the true Republican ideology - its dictatorial nature - is shown.
At least you've been able to separate Republican rhetoric from Conservative principles. Too bad you aren't a citizen of the US.

At least you've been able to separate Republican rhetoric from Conservative principles. Too bad you aren't a citizen of the US.

With your president, that fact is one of the few things I'm currently thankful for. I do get to say my mind on your president as he affects other countries with his insane blood lust.

Which means McCain can say what he said too. He's still nuts though.

Until he starts trying to make dissent illegal...

John McCain's a Bushevik and so is Lame Bums. End of story.

"I can pigeonhole this person and that person into this group. There...now I can consider them a two-dimensional stereotype rather than an actual person, thus allowing me to dismiss their views and opinions and ignore everything they have to say."

Lol, this lame bums is even more entertaining then MTAE/FAG or the others.

"I can pigeonhole this person and that person into this group. There...now I can consider them a two-dimensional stereotype rather than an actual person, thus allowing me to dismiss their views and opinions and ignore everything they have to say."

John McCain has been sucking up to the Religious Right and even parroted support of Dear Leader's Iraq policies. Lame Bums openly advocates subverting or even doing away with the Constitution selectively to stifle dissent in a mindset like that which escalated use of Free Speech Zones.

How are those behaviors not Bushevik, praytell?

Ignore Kyronea, he has also become nothing but a Bushevik apologist and ultra-right winder.

Well, fuck him, fuck the horse he rode in on (and the horse he's still riding apparently *taps arm*).
Fuck that sedition act bullshit. He and "Savage" and O'Reilly and all those other cowards can take a long skip off a short plank.

You are running out of candidates to support!! :p

I was never a McCain nor a Ron Paul supporter. So there :p

Ignore Kyronea, he has also become nothing but a Bushevik apologist and ultra-right winder.

Ignore Andaras Prime, he is a communist apologist and a stalinist.

John McCain has been sucking up to the Religious Right and even parroted support of Dear Leader's Iraq policies. Lame Bums openly advocates subverting or even doing away with the Constitution selectively to stifle dissent in a mindset like that which escalated use of Free Speech Zones.

How are those behaviors not Bushevik, praytell?

My point was that you're not even considering what all they have to say...you're just hearing a small portion then declaring them to be a stereotype and ignoring all further points. Whether or not they fit the stereotype is not the issue...the issue is that they are people just like everyone else, and that there are many differences even if the opinions and viewpoints seem the same on the surface level.

For example, UB and I are both atheists. If someone who is extremely religious heard that, they might ignore anything else we have to say and pigeonhole us into this view of being evil people who hate religious people.

Said extremely religious person would then fail to see the fact that while UB and I are both atheists, I am in no certain terms a hater of religious people, while UB is most certainly an anti-Semite, or at least an anti-Jew.

See what I mean?

Ignore Kyronea, he has also become nothing but a Bushevik apologist and ultra-right winder.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13059518&postcount=52

Please read that before accusing me of something I am not. (Unless you meant this in jest, in which case, well played, good sir.)

"I can pigeonhole this person and that person into this group. There...now I can consider them a two-dimensional stereotype rather than an actual person, thus allowing me to dismiss their views and opinions and ignore everything they have to say."

You know what? You're right. I won't say he's a Bushevik. However, he IS a person that SAID DISSENTERS SHOULD BE DEPORTED, which, on the issue of politics, YES, allows me to disregard what he said simply because he's willing to sell the SOUL of your country, DIRT CHEAP! This has nothing to do with him being two-dimensional and everything to do with him supporting turning the US into a dystopia.

You know what? You're right. I won't say he's a Bushevik. However, he IS a person that SAID DISSENTERS SHOULD BE DEPORTED, WHICH, ON THE ISSUE OF POLITICS, YES, ALLOWS ME TO DISREGARD WHAT HE SAID SIMPLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT HE'S WILLING TO SELL THE SOUL OF THE USA!

Now that's a much more reasonable position--albeit still an incorrect one--to take.

He did not say all dissenters should be deported...he said only that the Moveon.Org people should be deported. Now, obviously, this can be interpreted to mean that all dissenters should be deported, but it's quite possible that he only wished for these specific dissenters to be deported, that he does not hold a position of "all dissent should be crushed."

In other words, you should listen to him more so you make sure entirely of what he's actually saying rather than just assuming.

Now that's a much more reasonable position--albeit still an incorrect one--to take.

He did not say all dissenters should be deported...he said only that the Moveon.Org people should be deported. Now, obviously, this can be interpreted to mean that all dissenters should be deported, but it's quite possible that he only wished for these specific dissenters to be deported, that he does not hold a position of "all dissent should be crushed."

In other words, you should listen to him more so you make sure entirely of what he's actually saying rather than just assuming.

Okay, now, who cares about this one difference? If he handpicked a select few whose opinions offend him the MOST and said that group should be deported, it doesn't change the fact that he would like the First Amendment to go down. Plus, if one's willing to stifle certain political speech liberties, he sure is willing to stifle other ones.

In addition to going along with this "Deport MoveOn" crap, Lame Bums in the "What if it is possible to win Iraq and Afghanistan?" thread has explicitly advocated and called for a Mongolian policy of totally shitstomping everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan into submission as a means of stopping the insurgency.

That makes him a Bushevik.

I don't know if that's fair to Bush. As bad as he is, I don't think he's advocated the total depopulation theory of counterinsurgency yet.

My point was that you're not even considering what all they have to say...you're just hearing a small portion then declaring them to be a stereotype and ignoring all further points. Whether or not they fit the stereotype is not the issue...the issue is that they are people just like everyone else, and that there are many differences even if the opinions and viewpoints seem the same on the surface level.

For example, UB and I are both atheists. If someone who is extremely religious heard that, they might ignore anything else we have to say and pigeonhole us into this view of being evil people who hate religious people.

Said extremely religious person would then fail to see the fact that while UB and I are both atheists, I am in no certain terms a hater of religious people, while UB is most certainly an anti-Semite, or at least an anti-Jew.

See what I mean?

That's you assuming I'll pigeonhole all atheists into the same category. I've seen enough of McCain and Lame Bums to make a good enough assessment that they're both Busheviks.

McCain as just mentioned, in addition to this "Deport MoveOn" crap, has embraced the Religious Right (one of Bush's strongest base of support) and has gone along rank-and-file with the disastrous Iraq policy that has turned the United States into World Bully in the eyes of the globe. There's even a famous photo of McCain embracing Dubya- this despite the infamous smear tactics employed by the Bush campaign during the 2000 or 2004(?) election which smeared McCain as a Gay Agenda Operative.

That makes him a Bushevik.

In addition to going along with this "Deport MoveOn" crap, Lame Bums in the "What if it is possible to win Iraq and Afghanistan?" thread has explicitly advocated and called for a Mongolian policy of totally shitstomping everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan into submission as a means of stopping the insurgency.

That makes him a Bushevik.

Okay, now, who cares about this one difference? If he handpicked a select few whose opinions offend him the MOST and said that group should be deported, it doesn't change the fact that he would like the First Amendment to go down.

It is a significant difference though. It means that while he does deport the worst offenders of dissent, he allows all other dissent. In other words, he'll allow dissent, but only to a certain extent. That is not eliminating free speech, but merely restricting it somewhat.

Don't get me wrong...I definitely disagree with the idea, but there is still a difference.

That's you assuming I'll pigeonhole all atheists into the same category.

No, that's me offering an example of what I was saying.

I've seen enough of McCain and Lame Bums to make a good enough assessment that they're both Busheviks.

McCain as just mentioned, in addition to this "Deport MoveOn" crap, has embraced the Religious Right (one of Bush's strongest base of support) and has gone along rank-and-file with the disastrous Iraq policy that has turned the United States into World Bully in the eyes of the globe. There's even a famous photo of McCain embracing Dubya- this despite the infamous smear tactics employed by the Bush campaign during the 2000 or 2004(?) election which smeared McCain as a Gay Agenda Operative.

That makes him a Bushevik.

Sure, up to this point, but he might not stay that way, especially since he wasn't always that way. All I'm saying is that you don't just dismiss someone unless there is reasonable evidence to show that they will simply not change.


In addition to going along with this "Deport MoveOn" crap, Lame Bums in the "What if it is possible to win Iraq and Afghanistan?" thread has explicitly advocated and called for a Mongolian policy of totally shitstomping everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan into submission as a means of stopping the insurgency.

That makes him a Bushevik.

Wait, how does this make him a Bushevik? Bush is not employing this plan in Iraq and Afghanistan. He's employing a pretty stupid plan, but I would not call it by any means "shitstomping everyone." If he was doing that, no civilians would be protected at all, and protection of civilians is one of the main things the troops are responsible for in both countries right now.

It is a significant difference though. It means that while he does deport the worst offenders of dissent, he allows all other dissent. In other words, he'll allow dissent, but only to a certain extent. That is not eliminating free speech, but merely restricting it somewhat.

It's not enough of a difference. It's not only about the "kind" of dissent, even assuming it matters, it's also about the punishment. Deportation of nationals isn't practiced by civilized nations (extradition, but for crimes committed overseas), let alone for political discourse. Plus "dissent to a certain extent" will get this "certain extent" to shrink with time, as you know.

It's not enough of a difference. It's not only about the "kind" of dissent, even assuming it matters, it's also about the punishment. Deportation of nationals isn't practiced by civilized nations (extradition, but for crimes committed overseas), let alone for political discourse. Plus "dissent to a certain extent" will get this "certain extent" to shrink with time, as you know.
Yes, this is true. Still, the difference exists and cannot and should not be ignored.

There's also the possibility that McCain's statement was taken out of context...it could've been a toss off statement in anger that he really didn't mean, and since this is American politics and it was recorded by someone, it gets reported, as does anything else any politician says that can be interpreted in many different ways.

In other words, don't just ignore him. Continue to pay attention to see if your interpretation is actually correct or not.

Yes, this is true. Still, the difference exists and cannot and should not be ignored.

There's also the possibility that McCain's statement was taken out of context...it could've been a toss off statement in anger that he really didn't mean, and since this is American politics and it was recorded by someone, it gets reported, as does anything else any politician says that can be interpreted in many different ways.

In other words, don't just ignore him. Continue to pay attention to see if your interpretation is actually correct or not.

I don't ignore him, it would be unwise to ignore a threat.

Bear in mind, though, that:

1- I'm a liberal for Brazilian standards, which are liberal for US standards.

2- My country was once a dictatorship, so we sorta value free speech and freedom of dissent here. More so than the US seem to be valuing them right now.

3- I'm also skilled in linguistics to know that a word choice denotes a thought pattern, no matter how angry one is.

4- If it were up to me I'd vote for whatever Democrat runs against whatever Republican.

I don't ignore him, it would be unwise to ignore a threat.
Good. No one should.

Bear in mind, though, that:

I like lists.

1- I'm a liberal for Brazilian standards, which are liberal for US standards.


Making you and I pretty similar, basically.

2- My country was once a dictatorship, so we sorta value free speech and freedom of dissent here. More so than the US seem to be valuing them right now.
Indeed. Such perspective is needed at times...remember, the U.S. has never really faced a serious threat to its power since, oh, the War of 1812 or so. Since then we've basically been completely untouched. Even our civil war was over in four years, which is pretty short for that kind of war. We're basically pristine, virgin and naive. The original founders understood the need for free speech and dissent, but no one since has ever had the lesson truly shown to them.

3- I'm also skilled in linguistics to know that a word choice denotes a thought pattern, no matter how angry one is.


Really? I didn't know that.

4- If it were up to me I'd vote for whatever Democrat runs against whatever Republican.
I'd certainly do that too, but mainly because I do not want the Republicans in power at all. I'm not all that happy about handing the Democrats that power, but due to our pathetically altered system, they're the only other actual competitors with a chance to win.

LOL.. McCain is losing it.. maybe he is too old for the game.

All this republican whinning reminds me of the Rock-me-amadeus mix @ the daily show :D

But he doesn't want illegals deported or any type of border security...this is why I vote third party, both of them are fubar.

Wasn't the last news we had about McCain on NSG that his campaign was broke and without reliable backers? (maybe that was someone else but I am pretty sure). This imho is just a case of what started out as a good guy slowly going desperately to the far right as his campaign went downhill? This I believe started with him taking a walk in Baghdad and saying 'everything is fine'.

But he doesn't want illegals deported or any type of border security...this is why I vote third party, both of them are fubar.

Wow, you don't vote for either party due to your very, very strong hatred of brown people and ONLY your very, very strong hatred of brown people. That's not something I'd admit on any forum but Stormfront, but by all means.

Wow, you don't vote for either party due to your very, very strong hatred of brown people and ONLY your very, very strong hatred of brown people. That's not something I'd admit on any forum but Stormfront, but by all means.

Dey turk mi jurb!

Dey turk mi jurb!

Nah, it was outsourced to India. Well, which would mean SOME brown people took his job, but not THE brown people he faps to keeping out at shoot-to-kill gunpoint.

Nah, it was outsourced to India. Well, which would mean SOME brown people took his job, but not THE brown people he faps to keeping out at shoot-to-kill gunpoint.

Yeah, but those brown people often get mistaken for THE Brown People you know.

Yeah, but those brown people often get mistaken for THE Brown People you know.

Especially by someone incompetent enough to get his job outsourced to India OR to be replaced at a job by someone that was poor in their homeland and doesn't know the language?

Especially by someone incompetent enough to get his job outsourced to India OR to be replaced at a job by someone that was poor in their homeland and doesn't know the language?

Sorry bud, but American workers are the most productive in the world. They are replaced with Indians because they are cheaper. Thing is, Indians aren't nearly as productive. I've seen three Indians try to replace one American worker in an IT department, and it was a flop. They had to try and rehire as many of the old workers as possible after a year.

I want illegals deported, too. Does that mean I hate brown people? No. Try again.

Wanting to have illegals deported does not mean someone hates brown people. Straw man.

However, wanting illegals deported is following the law. Being in America illegally is a felony offense, and a felony offense on an alien merits deportation. End of story.

Good for him. Its not like US has freedom of speech to protect this sort of thing. Oh wait.

Sorry bud, but American workers are the most productive in the world. They are replaced with Indians because they are cheaper. Thing is, Indians aren't nearly as productive. I've seen three Indians try to replace one American worker in an IT department, and it was a flop. They had to try and rehire as many of the old workers as possible after a year.

Anecdotal.

Sorry bud, but American workers are the most productive in the world.

(...)


However, wanting illegals deported is following the law. Being in America illegally is a felony offense, and a felony offense on an alien merits deportation. End of story.

"Khazakstan greatest country in the world!" - You sound like Borat.

Also, would you support the LAW that gives amnesty to those immigrants? No? Then you only support the law when it suits you. Do you support the First Ammendment LAW? No? Then you only support the law when it suits you. Would you support a LAW if it made it easier for one to become a LEGAL immigrant? No? Then you, once again, only support the law when it suits you.

Please. You already lost an argument to me easily here, there comes a time in which it's plain mean of me to keep on the arguments.

"Khazakstan greatest country in the world!" - You sound like Borat.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/02/news/economy/worker_productivity.ap/index.htm?section=money_topstories

Try again.

Also, would you support the LAW that gives amnesty to those immigrants? No? Then you only support the law when it suits you. Do you support the First Ammendment LAW? No? Then you only support the law when it suits you. Would you support a LAW if it made it easier for one to become a LEGAL immigrant? No? Then you, once again, only support the law when it suits you.

And if I disagreed with it, I would try to change it. Try again.

Please. You already lost an argument to me easily here, there comes a time in which it's plain mean of me to keep on the arguments.

If you call ignoring a giant straw man "losing an argument" then I guess you're right. I'm just not going to sink to your level, is all. Try again.

And if I disagreed with it, I would try to change it. Try again.

If you call ignoring a giant straw man "losing an argument" then I guess you're right. I'm just not going to sink to your level, is all. Try again.

So you do admit that, yes, you have a thing against immigrants, just like you have a thing against the Constitution. You can't have it both ways, behaving as if you want to protect your country while spitting on one of its main symbols. You can write "try again" and "strawman", as if you knew what either means, for as long as you want, you will not change that.

Just had to pop off an e-mail to Mcains site. At one time he was one of the few Republicans I had some respect for. This Moveon thing is only the latest in many examples of what a right-wing lapdog he's become. Catering to the lowest common denominator of the Republican party.

Wow, you don't vote for either party due to your very, very strong hatred of brown people and ONLY your very, very strong hatred of brown people. That's not something I'd admit on any forum but Stormfront, but by all means.

Yes I have a problem with people from other countries coming illegally across the borders of the United States. I don't care what color they are or what nationality they are or what they believe.

Actually I don't vote for either party anymore because neither party puts the interests of America ahead of their own interests and neither party is concerned with problems in America whatsoever. That's why I vote third party. Granted third party candidates have no shot at winning, to not vote is foolish.

So you do admit that, yes, you have a thing against immigrants, just like you have a thing against the Constitution. You can't have it both ways, behaving as if you want to protect your country while spitting on one of its main symbols. You can write "try again" and "strawman", as if you knew what either means, for as long as you want, you will not change that.

I do not have a thing against immigrants. However, I do have a thing against immigrants breaking the law. Stop putting words in my mouth and twisting what other people say to your advantage. If you can't debate in a logical manner with facts, then don't debate at all.

And I guess by you not responding to the other parts of my post, you have in fact been proven wrong on something and refuse to admit it, oh, so-righteous-and-holier-than-thou liberal? So try again. :)

Meh, what do you expect? We knew he was pro-censorship ever since McCain-Fiengold.

It might be dementia or something...because of old age, but not old age. Ron Paul is older, but awesomer.

Snip.

Cute how you're also in favor of fighting against laws that would make it easier to be a LEGAL in the US. Cute how you're also in favor of ignoring your country's most basic law and deporting people for crimethink. I have been proven wrong in nothing here; you're willing to stifle free speech, and you disguise your prejudice against foreigners with "the law" while not being willing to follow it when it displeases you. As for your assertion that they "work better", it's STILL anecdotal evidence at best. Try going to Japan to see what "working" is.

I do not have a thing against immigrants. However, I do have a thing against immigrants breaking the law.

Oh then you're surely in favor of making it easier to enter the country legally, right? After all, if you have nothing against immigrants, just those that break the law, if we eliminate the law, they're not breaking it anymore!

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/02/news/economy/worker_productivity.ap/index.htm?section=money_topstories


Just a debate tip on NSG: Put the source in the initial argument and lose the story about the three Indian ITs.

Read my post on the last page again. I have you a link to a study, the results are clear as day.

I am opposed to amnesty because I'm not going to forgive lawbreakers. I guess it could qualify as easier immigration - considering all they had to do was hop the fence.

And yet you failed to tell me if you're in favor of making LEGAL immigration easier. And yet you're STILL defending the act of breaking the law when it suits you.

Cute how you're also in favor of fighting against laws that would make it easier to be a LEGAL in the US. Cute how you're also in favor of ignoring your country's most basic law and deporting people for crimethink. I have been proven wrong in nothing here; you're willing to stifle free speech, and you disguise your prejudice against foreigners with "the law" while not being willing to follow it when it displeases you. As for your assertion that they "work better", it's STILL anecdotal evidence at best. Try going to Japan to see what "working" is.

Read my post on the last page again. I have you a link to a study, the results are clear as day.

I am opposed to amnesty because I'm not going to forgive lawbreakers. I guess it could qualify as easier immigration - considering all they had to do was hop the fence.

And yet you failed to tell me if you're in favor of making LEGAL immigration easier.

I am. Happy now? I would cut down on the red tape and make it so people aren't waiting in such long-ass lines.

And yet you're STILL defending the act of breaking the law when it suits you.

Bud, I don't know where the Hell this one came from. In deporting illegals, I am enforcing the law, not breaking it.

Heh, betray us. That's pretty catchy. :)

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/02/news/economy/worker_productivity.ap/index.htm?section=money_topstories

Try again.
Here's the problem with statistics: You can interpret them anyway you want in order for them to bolster your stance.
Add in sloppy journalism and blatant partisanship towards the US in the article and one is left with a good example of lousy reporting.

I note they dismiss Norway (who are in fact more productive according to their figures) with a sentence (their productivity figures are 'inflated' due to high prices and oil exports) because it doesn't match with their title, "U.S. workers: World's most productive".
If we're not going to compare Norway to USA because they export stuff and their beer is expensive, then why/how can we compare USA to China (for eg), when prices on everything is much higher in the USA than in China?

This immediately makes one wonder as to the veracity of the rest of the article and the way they're using the figures and the word, "Productive".


"The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year...Whereas a Chinese industrial worker produces $12,642 worth of output"
Oh...guess that means the US worker is 5 times more productive than their Chinese counterpart, huh? (cue rednecks pumping there fists in the air and chanting, "USA! USA! USA!")
wait a minute. The average annual income in the USA is $43000US whereas the average annual income in China is $1500US.

In other words, our US worker 'produces' 1.5 times their income but the Chinese worker 'produces' 8 times theirs.
Which one is more productive again?

Who cares if America has the most productive workers, I'll bet quasi-fascist crony capitalism has also made them the most miserable, underpaid, underentitled and generally downtrodden in the whole world. I'd prefer to live in Europe thanks, for free health care etc etc

Bud, I don't know where the Hell this one came from.

Oh, I dunno, maybe here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13058433&postcount=27), you know, the whole "advocating laws prohibiting the freedom of speech" bit which is, of course...illegal.

Bud, I don't know where the Hell this one came from. In deporting illegals, I am enforcing the law, not breaking it.

And in suggesting that free speech should be punishable with deportation, you're in favor of BREAKING the law, not enforcing it, a law, should I add, MUCH more important than "keep the brown people out".