If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Your Monday Morning schadenfreude: Watching McCain try and sell Syria to Arizonians   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 122
    More: Amusing, Sen. John McCain  
•       •       •

1502 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Sep 2013 at 11:43 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



122 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-09 10:08:34 AM
www.thewho.info
 
2013-09-09 10:26:00 AM
I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..
 
2013-09-09 10:34:51 AM
Why do they want to go to war so badly? To show we can do it right? Of course we won't. These same idiots will be the reason the US will screw it up again.

No wars. Lets spend some time upgrading things at home.
 
2013-09-09 10:37:09 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..


According to Obama's statement, it's America's duty to intervene when bad things happen.  You can't sit idly by while another country does bad things.

The current war has made that line of reasoning suspect at best. I fear GWB and his war, plus Obama's continuation of it, have completely destroyed the people's trust in the Administration to tell them when a war is necessary.
 
2013-09-09 10:40:13 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..


It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.
 
2013-09-09 10:42:34 AM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.


Now THAT is some funny stuff right there.  Very droll.

Benevolent Misanthrope: The current war has made that line of reasoning suspect at best. I fear GWB and his war, plus Obama's continuation of it, have completely destroyed the people's trust in the Administration to tell them when a war is necessary


That's droll squared.
 
2013-09-09 10:44:23 AM
I find it more disturbing that he's advocated a war, demanded that Obama do more than just "drop bombs" (him and Lindsey got him to promise to put troops in to teach the rebels) and came out saying that if Obama puts boots on the ground, it's impeachable.
 
2013-09-09 10:53:16 AM

somedude210: I find it more disturbing that he's advocated a war, demanded that Obama do more than just "drop bombs" (him and Lindsey got him to promise to put troops in to teach the rebels) and came out saying that if Obama puts boots on the ground, it's impeachable.


And then completely ignoring the slaughter happening in Darfur over the past decade, like it's not even happening.
 
2013-09-09 11:01:40 AM

somedude210: I find it more disturbing that he's advocated a war, demanded that Obama do more than just "drop bombs" (him and Lindsey got him to promise to put troops in to teach the rebels) and came out saying that if Obama puts boots on the ground, it's impeachable.


you do know that obama's a democrat, right?
 
2013-09-09 11:15:17 AM

Marcus Aurelius: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.

Now THAT is some funny stuff right there.  Very droll.

Benevolent Misanthrope: The current war has made that line of reasoning suspect at best. I fear GWB and his war, plus Obama's continuation of it, have completely destroyed the people's trust in the Administration to tell them when a war is necessary

That's droll squared.


I wasn't trying to be funny.  Don't you think a non-response, moves the yard stick forward on the acceptability on using chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-09 11:15:24 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria


The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.
 
2013-09-09 11:16:46 AM

Marcus Aurelius: And then completely ignoring the slaughter happening in Darfur over the past decade, like it's not even happening.


yeah I know. And I think it's deplorable that we, as well as the international community as a whole have ignored such things. That doesn't mean that we should ignore this one

FlashHarry: you do know that obama's a democrat, right?


doesn't matter. If he's advocating impeachment over terms he fought for, he should be brought up on charges too
 
2013-09-09 11:28:41 AM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


How naive are we that they are still trying to sell us wars on moral grounds and succeeding? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. How about the many genocides we've done nothing about, or standing idly by when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians? The polling on Syria gives me hope that we may not be entirely a nation of rubes.
 
2013-09-09 11:32:54 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.

How naive are we that they are still trying to sell us wars on moral grounds and succeeding? It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. How about the many genocides we've done nothing about, or standing idly by when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians? The polling on Syria gives me hope that we may not be entirely a nation of rubes.


Know how I know you haven't checked ANY polls about popular opinion?
 
2013-09-09 11:36:29 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. How about the many genocides we've done nothing about, or standing idly by when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians? The polling on Syria gives me hope that we may not be entirely a nation of rubes.


The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Or, to put it another way: do you give all your expendable income to charity? No? What about all those poor, hungry, etc. people you haven't helped? Clearly this means you shouldn't give any money to charity, because in the past, you didn't help everybody you could have.
 
2013-09-09 11:38:44 AM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.

Now THAT is some funny stuff right there.  Very droll.

Benevolent Misanthrope: The current war has made that line of reasoning suspect at best. I fear GWB and his war, plus Obama's continuation of it, have completely destroyed the people's trust in the Administration to tell them when a war is necessary

That's droll squared.

I wasn't trying to be funny.  Don't you think a non-response, moves the yard stick forward on the acceptability on using chemical weapons.


If we were consistent in our approach then that might be the case.  History indicates otherwise.  We tend to find outrage in the places where politicians want to bomb/invade.
 
2013-09-09 11:40:20 AM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


Well we should have done something when Saddam was gassing the Kurds then.
 
2013-09-09 11:44:01 AM
I guess ' ..Bomb, bomb, bomb....bomb bomb Syria' just doesn't have a ring to it.
 
2013-09-09 11:45:09 AM
I think there is a fear we will ignore another Darfur.  Which is not to say I am for bombing Syria.
 
2013-09-09 11:47:19 AM
this is bush's legacy. act like we have to go to war because of chemical/nuclear weapons when we didn't, then when we SHOULD drop some bombs(but not go to war) we can't because people are tired of a decade of war.
 
2013-09-09 11:50:17 AM
Isn't tear gas a chemical weapon?

t3.gstatic.com
 
2013-09-09 11:50:39 AM

Nadie_AZ: Why do they want to go to war so badly? To show we can do it right? Of course we won't. These same idiots will be the reason the US will screw it up again.

No wars. Lets spend some time upgrading things at home.


What? Make our country better instead of making other countries worse? What are you...some kinda socialist?
 
2013-09-09 11:51:28 AM

nmrsnr: UrukHaiGuyz: It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. How about the many genocides we've done nothing about, or standing idly by when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians? The polling on Syria gives me hope that we may not be entirely a nation of rubes.

The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Or, to put it another way: do you give all your expendable income to charity? No? What about all those poor, hungry, etc. people you haven't helped? Clearly this means you shouldn't give any money to charity, because in the past, you didn't help everybody you could have.


That's missing the point entirely. We didn't get involved in those previous instances because morality has f*ck all to do with why we get involved. We've never been the moral crusaders we've pretended to be since WW2, and it's sad that these wars for profit are still being sold as "The Right Thing to Do TM."

Put another way: Is it really reasonable that the most good we can do in the world is by manufacturing expensive ways to kill people in foreign countries? Why not devote all those resources to feeding people/disaster relief/etc.? It has nothing to do with morals.
 
2013-09-09 11:52:30 AM

cubic_spleen: Nadie_AZ: Why do they want to go to war so badly? To show we can do it right? Of course we won't. These same idiots will be the reason the US will screw it up again.

No wars. Lets spend some time upgrading things at home.

What? Make our country better instead of making other countries worse? What are you...some kinda socialist?


Yeah, it's not like we can do both at the same time.  That's just crazy talk.
 
2013-09-09 11:53:16 AM

Nadie_AZ: Why do they want to go to war so badly? To show we can do it right? Of course we won't. These same idiots will be the reason the US will screw it up again.

No wars. Lets spend some time upgrading things at home.


If we keep everything shiatty, it will discourage people from attacking us.
 
2013-09-09 11:53:18 AM
Trying to sell Arizona on Syria?  Seems like quite a gamble.
 
2013-09-09 11:53:42 AM

nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.


Yeah, that's precisely what we need.
 
2013-09-09 11:55:32 AM

Sybarite: [www.thewho.info image 400x521]


Fool me once, shame on you!

Fool me twice ...

...

I'm not going to get fooled again!
 
2013-09-09 11:55:51 AM

GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.


As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.
 
2013-09-09 11:56:19 AM
Anti-war people yelling at McCain who were demanding more diplomacy:
Assad has been bombing his own people for nearly two years now.  What, exactly, do you think we should try diplomatically to stop this?

Specific actions and initiatives.  Not just a demand to "use diplomacy."

And it has been said that war is the ultimate act of diplomacy.
 
2013-09-09 11:56:53 AM

Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..


They cant tell us the reasons because that's classified. We could protest of course, but look what happened to OWS when they just asked a few questions about how the banks are run.
 
2013-09-09 11:57:14 AM
This is one of those times where it is a good thing that republicans are reflexively against anything Obama is for. Thank god Romney didn't get elected or these same dumbasses would be cheering for the bombing and calling anyone against it a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor to our country.
 
2013-09-09 11:57:52 AM

Infernalist: GoldSpider: nmrsnr: The failure of the world to act in other circumstances does not mean that inaction here is the correct course of action. In fact, it goes the other way, it implies we should get involved in more places around the word, not less.

Yeah, that's precisely what we need.

As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII, I fail to see how people are just now noticing and getting upset over it.


It gets harder to lie to the public as communications tech improves.
 
2013-09-09 11:58:31 AM
Well, we shouldn't be getting involved in regards to the rebels.  There are no reasonable 'good guys' over there in that bunch.  I fail to see why the GOP even wants us to get involved like this.

It's like....they NEED to put American lives in harm's way by putting soldiers on the ground in an occupied ME country.

NO.  This needs to be a repeat of Libya, not Iraq.
 
2013-09-09 12:01:21 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: That's missing the point entirely. We didn't get involved in those previous instances because morality has f*ck all to do with why we get involved. We've never been the moral crusaders we've pretended to be since WW2, and it's sad that these wars for profit are still being sold as "The Right Thing to Do TM."Put another way: Is it really reasonable that the most good we can do in the world is by manufacturing expensive ways to kill people in foreign countries? Why not devote all those resources to feeding people/disaster relief/etc.? It has nothing to do with morals.


Which is fine. I was saying that merely stating "we didn't stop those tragedies" isn't an argument as to why we shouldn't try and stop this one. Saying "we're particularly bad at it, and there are much better ways of accomplishing it than bombing" is a reasonable argument, and one I agree with, but if the options are "do nothing" or "do something ham fisted, but shows that what's going on isn't okay" I prefer ham fisted.

Marcus Aurelius: Well we should have done something when Saddam was gassing the Kurds then.


[quizzical dog.jpg]

I seem to recall a Gulf War.
 
2013-09-09 12:04:44 PM

Headso: This is one of those times where it is a good thing that republicans are reflexively against anything Obama is for. Thank god Romney didn't get elected or these same dumbasses would be cheering for the bombing and calling anyone against it a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor to our country.


Would Pelosi, Reid and Feinstein still be in favor of bombing, or are they just partisan hacks willing to spill blood to make their guy look good?
 
2013-09-09 12:08:47 PM

Nemo's Brother: Headso: This is one of those times where it is a good thing that republicans are reflexively against anything Obama is for. Thank god Romney didn't get elected or these same dumbasses would be cheering for the bombing and calling anyone against it a terrorist sympathizer and a traitor to our country.

Would Pelosi, Reid and Feinstein still be in favor of bombing, or are they just partisan hacks willing to spill blood to make their guy look good?


Of course they'd probably be against it, but they are also elected officials and partisan hackery is to be expected. The constituency with nothing to actually gain from their political loyalty are the all day suckers. That includes the farkers who think this is a great idea but who'd be saying hell no if this same thing happened in 2007.
 
2013-09-09 12:10:54 PM
I'm well past draft age and my kid is less than one year old.

Bomb Syria, Don't bomb Syria, it's along way from me.  I'm more worried about anti-government christian nuts blowing up another building here in Oklahoma.
 
2013-09-09 12:15:22 PM
nmrsnr: Which is fine. I was saying that merely stating "we didn't stop those tragedies" isn't an argument as to why we shouldn't try and stop this one. Saying "we're particularly bad at it, and there are much better ways of accomplishing it than bombing" is a reasonable argument, and one I agree with, but if the options are "do nothing" or "do something ham fisted, but shows that what's going on isn't okay" I prefer ham fisted.

Ham-fisted idiocy is why we have small dedicated cells of people around the world that want to kill Americans. If there is such great injustice that it requires military intervention, let the UN resolve to do it.

[quizzical dog.jpg]

I seem to recall a Gulf War.


The Gulf War was the result of Iraq invading the sovereign state of Kuwait, not Saddam gassing Kurds (which happened in the late '80's in the Iran-Iraq war). Learning history is important, or you'll just keep getting suckered.
 
2013-09-09 12:18:33 PM

Zombie Butler: Isn't tear gas a chemical weapon?


No, it's basically a condiment.

/I know.
 
2013-09-09 12:18:50 PM

Zombie Butler: Isn't tear gas a chemical weapon?

[t3.gstatic.com image 299x169]


Sure is!  Banned for use in war, but not for use on a nation's own population.
 
2013-09-09 12:19:00 PM

Infernalist: As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.


And what exactly does that involve?  Dropping a few random bombs in the desert?  Which horse are we backing?  The side that gasses their own people, or the side that is in bed with Al Queda?

Infernalist: You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII


And look where that has gotten us?
 
2013-09-09 12:19:08 PM
There are two thing I like about McCain.

(1) We both love ABBA.
(2) He knows how to do his job.

I am opposed to Syria action but he's only doing his job. If you do not want idiots who disagree with you yelling in your face do not volunteer to represent them. His job it to listen to the views of the people he represents and that is what he is doing, nothing more and nothing less. If the voters feel he is out of touch they can get rid of him.
 
2013-09-09 12:23:44 PM

GoldSpider: Infernalist: As long as we get involved intelligently and not like retarded monkeys(GOP STYLE), we should be okay.

And what exactly does that involve?  Dropping a few random bombs in the desert?  Which horse are we backing?  The side that gasses their own people, or the side that is in bed with Al Queda?

Infernalist: You know, we've been doing that whole 'getting involved' thing in most nations around the world since the end of WWII

And look where that has gotten us?


LOL lone superpower and leader of the free world?  OH NOES
 
2013-09-09 12:23:54 PM

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.


Which is probably one of the reasons Russia is vetoing the UN resolution.  If the US doesn't act, then Russia basically has carte blanche to gas the Chechens.
 
2013-09-09 12:26:25 PM

Rixel: nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria

The fundamental argument is moral hazard. The world, not just the US, has declared chemical weapons strictly verboten, so if they don't back up their words with action the next guy might not wait so long before using chemical weapons, because as long as you only kill your own people, the world clearly won't mind.

Which is probably one of the reasons Russia is vetoing the UN resolution.  If the US doesn't act, then Russia basically has carte blanche to gas the Chechens.


New developments this morning, Syria is welcoming the idea of turning over their CWs to the UN and Assad is likely to put the blame for the attack on one of his generals.  This thing is close to being resolved.
 
2013-09-09 12:28:00 PM
ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!
 
2013-09-09 12:29:30 PM

FarkedOver: ITT democrats are now the pro-war party.  This is amusing!


"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."
 
2013-09-09 12:30:09 PM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: I have no idea why the Federal government wants to bomb Syria, but I know for certain that it's a really bad idea that will accomplish nothing good..

It might prevent chemical weapons being used in the future.


Because bombing the shiat out of Saddam worked so well in stopping chemical weapons being used in the future?
 
2013-09-09 12:32:11 PM

worlddan: There are two thing I like about McCain.

(1) We both love ABBA.
(2) He knows how to do his job.

I am opposed to Syria action but he's only doing his job.


Is his job representing the people of Arizona or representing the stockholders of Raytheon?
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report