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 (1 year 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 12:34:45 PM
Old man yells at cloud.  Cloud yells back.
 
2013-09-09 12:39:57 PM
"I am not opposed to all dumb wars. I am opposed to dumb Republican wars."
 
2013-09-09 12:39:58 PM
How about instead of getting into another war that won't ever end we spend some time fixing things like infrastructure? Hmmm? We don't need to fight another useless war no matter if chemical weapons were used or not. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S COPS.
 
2013-09-09 12:41:12 PM
McCain said that in the wake of the Iraq war, he understands why so many have misgivings about getting involved in the Syrian conflict.

Jeez, funny how now that a Dem wants to go to war, suddenly everybody is all contemplative.
 
2013-09-09 12:42:04 PM

A Terrible Human: How about instead of getting into another war that won't ever end we spend some time fixing things like infrastructure? Hmmm? We don't need to fight another useless war no matter if chemical weapons were used or not. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S COPS.


Seriously, you all need to flip over to cnn.com.

This thing is getting resolved without strikes.  Assad is giving up his CWs.
 
2013-09-09 12:42:34 PM

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

"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."


I've read the thread. People who affiliate with the democratic party are using all sorts of logistical gymnastics to support bombing people in the middle east.  What have I missed in this thread?
 
2013-09-09 12:46:00 PM

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


Now? Democrats are pretty consistently in favor of all wars. Substantially more hawkish than Republicans who support all war but only only when a Republican is president.
 
2013-09-09 12:47:59 PM
The cheese stands alone...

Headso: 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.


When Romney advocated a line similar to McCain he got beat up by the Republican base for it. Involvement in Syria has been unpopular since early 2012.

JolobinSmokin: I'm more worried about anti-government christian nuts blowing up another building here in Oklahoma.


McVeigh says his prime motivation for the attack was the US bombing kids in Iraq. He saw the US being an immoral foreign power that needed to be taken down a notch. Christianity had nothing to do with it.
 
2013-09-09 12:48:38 PM
It is pretty funny to see all the GOP hawks who have found religion over this Syria business.  Obama really is magic.
 
2013-09-09 12:50:37 PM

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

Now? Democrats are pretty consistently in favor of all wars. Substantially more hawkish than Republicans who support all war but only only when a Republican is president.


Democratic party leaders are retroactively reluctant warmongers. After they gladly support a war they become anti-war as penitence for their support. The Iraq War vote and subsequent rebuke of it was a textbook play.
 
2013-09-09 12:52:09 PM

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

"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."

I've read the thread. People who affiliate with the democratic party are using all sorts of logistical gymnastics to support bombing people in the middle east.  What have I missed in this thread?


Apparently you've found a tag showing peoples' voter registration, which I didn't know Fark had.
 
2013-09-09 12:52:37 PM
Sincerely, people....

For once, just for a little while...stop the bullshiat.  We're looking at something close to a perfect solution to this Syrian mess and you people are still snarling and snapping at each other.

Take five seconds and try to realize that we may well be looking at this thing getting resolved with all parties getting what they want...well aside from the rebels and fark them.

Take a breath and just...relax.  Just for a little bit.
 
2013-09-09 12:52:53 PM

Satanic_Hamster: 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.


Maybe it's not on us to stop it.
 
2013-09-09 12:54:17 PM

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

Now? Democrats are pretty consistently in favor of all wars. Substantially more hawkish than Republicans who support all war but only only when a Republican is president.

Democratic party leaders are retroactively reluctant warmongers. After they gladly support a war they become anti-war as penitence for their support. The Iraq War vote and subsequent rebuke of it was a textbook play.


Oh.

Yeah, that's true. I fell for that.

Dammitsomuch.
 
2013-09-09 12:55:22 PM
Our allies in NATO and the U.N. (except France) don't seem to see any compelling reason to move forward on this.  There is no compelling proof put forward that Assad ordered a chemical weapon attack (other than Obama and the warhawks telling us they have it).  Additionallly, Al Qaeda insurgents are fighting on the side of the rebels at this point.

We should not be attacking Assad's forces until we have a more compelling reason.  We've stood by and watched people get slaughtered in North Korea, Darfur and numerous other countries.  If the U.N. is not yet compelled to enter Syria, we should stay out.
 
2013-09-09 12:55:25 PM

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

"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."

I've read the thread. People who affiliate with the democratic party are using all sorts of logistical gymnastics to support bombing people in the middle east.  What have I missed in this thread?

Apparently you've found a tag showing peoples' voter registration, which I didn't know Fark had.


If you spend a week on the politics tab you see the same names and you see their politic leanings. 
With the exception of me and a handful of others.  I've been called a republican and I've been called a liberal, when in fact I am neither of these things.
 
2013-09-09 12:56:18 PM

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

"I am too lazy to read, but strawmen are low-effort."

I've read the thread. People who affiliate with the democratic party are using all sorts of logistical gymnastics to support bombing people in the middle east.  What have I missed in this thread?

Apparently you've found a tag showing peoples' voter registration, which I didn't know Fark had.


This is fark. Unless someone is openly mocking liberals, they're a liberal.

And even then it's a toss up. You silly liebrul.
 
2013-09-09 12:57:38 PM

Dog Welder: Our allies in NATO and the U.N. (except France) don't seem to see any compelling reason to move forward on this.  There is no compelling proof put forward that Assad ordered a chemical weapon attack (other than Obama and the warhawks telling us they have it).  Additionallly, Al Qaeda insurgents are fighting on the side of the rebels at this point.

We should not be attacking Assad's forces until we have a more compelling reason.  We've stood by and watched people get slaughtered in North Korea, Darfur and numerous other countries.  If the U.N. is not yet compelled to enter Syria, we should stay out.


Dude, flip over to Cnn.com

It's over.  Syria's agreeing to turn over their CWs to the UN.  The main basis for the proposed attacks is all but resolved.
 
2013-09-09 12:57:55 PM
Maybe were all, all of us, just a little war weary?

//The next president will be elected because of his/her promises to scale back global intervention and mission.
 
2013-09-09 12:58:00 PM

Mrbogey: The cheese stands alone...

Headso: 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.

When Romney advocated a line similar to McCain he got beat up by the Republican base for it. Involvement in Syria has been unpopular since early 2012.

JolobinSmokin: I'm more worried about anti-government christian nuts blowing up another building here in Oklahoma.

McVeigh says his prime motivation for the attack was the US bombing kids in Iraq. He saw the US being an immoral foreign power that needed to be taken down a notch. Christianity had nothing to do with it.


Nice revisionist history there bub
 
2013-09-09 12:59:30 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: 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.


Are you saying we need boots on the ground in Syria? It sounds like you're saying we need boots on the ground in Syria.

// that's a bad idea
// bombs have an annoying way of killing humanitarians as well as soldiers
 
2013-09-09 01:02:44 PM
'most vocal oppoents' ??? Is anybody proofreading this crap?
 
2013-09-09 01:04:01 PM

Weaver95: 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.


What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.
 
2013-09-09 01:05:08 PM

meat0918: Maybe were all, all of us, just a little war weary?

//The next president will be elected because of his/her promises to scale back global intervention and mission.


I thought this one was elected because of that?

And got a Nobel peace prize?
 
2013-09-09 01:06:46 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: Weaver95: 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.

What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.


No one wants the left wing to have any power.
 
2013-09-09 01:08:13 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.


There are lots of people left from the occupy movement.  A lot of them have moved on to things like occupy homes, which fights against home foreclosure.  Further, the mere fact that most of the people that were at occupy got more radicalized is a good thing.

Why it failed: It was too inclusive to too many different sects and they never got any good press.
 
2013-09-09 01:09:00 PM

sendtodave: Bareefer Obonghit: Weaver95: 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.

What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.

No one wants the left wing to have any power.


I'd take a nice center-left technocrat, that'd be nice.
 
2013-09-09 01:11:46 PM

sendtodave: meat0918: Maybe were all, all of us, just a little war weary?

//The next president will be elected because of his/her promises to scale back global intervention and mission.

I thought this one was elected because of that?

And got a Nobel peace prize?


I think the biggest part was "Not a Republican after 8 years of Bush".

And Iraq "ended" on the time table set by the Bush administration, and Afghanistan is winding down, albeit a little slower than I would like.
 
2013-09-09 01:12:32 PM

FarkedOver: Bareefer Obonghit: What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.

There are lots of people left from the occupy movement.  A lot of them have moved on to things like occupy homes, which fights against home foreclosure.  Further, the mere fact that most of the people that were at occupy got more radicalized is a good thing.

Why it failed: It was too inclusive to too many different sects and they never got any good press.


Thanks for the info. That makes sense. I do find it hilarious though that the group stereotyped as dirty, transient bums are now 'Occupying Homes' hahaha
 
2013-09-09 01:17:49 PM

lilbjorn: 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?


Well Iraq stopped using chemical weapons after the first Persion Gulf war.  So there's that.
 
2013-09-09 01:18:26 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm lovin' it.
 
2013-09-09 01:18:47 PM

Bareefer Obonghit: FarkedOver: Bareefer Obonghit: What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.

There are lots of people left from the occupy movement.  A lot of them have moved on to things like occupy homes, which fights against home foreclosure.  Further, the mere fact that most of the people that were at occupy got more radicalized is a good thing.

Why it failed: It was too inclusive to too many different sects and they never got any good press.

Thanks for the info. That makes sense. I do find it hilarious though that the group stereotyped as dirty, transient bums are now 'Occupying Homes' hahaha


They aren't even fighting for themselves in the occupy homes movement, they're actually getting arrested trying to keep sheriff departments from evicting just regular folks regardless of political affiliation.  It's a pretty noble cause and making people sympathetic to the leftists in this country who actually are on the ground doing the dirty work that nobody wants to do.
 
2013-09-09 01:19:32 PM

Marcus Aurelius: 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.


That we have made dumb choices before does not mean this one is a dumb idea.
 
2013-09-09 01:24:43 PM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

That we have made dumb choices before does not mean this one is a dumb idea.


It isn't dumb by virtue of previous (in)action, it's just all around stupid to have a strategic plan that consists entirely of "drop some bombs over there". It's even stupider in the light of recent history, and the makeup of the combatants.
 
2013-09-09 01:25:35 PM

FarkedOver: Bareefer Obonghit: What did happen to them? It's really disappointing that something like that fizzles out / is snuffed out yet a minority of the GOP can control policy for the whole lot of them. Guess you have to have the right backers is the lesson.

There are lots of people left from the occupy movement.  A lot of them have moved on to things like occupy homes, which fights against home foreclosure.  Further, the mere fact that most of the people that were at occupy got more radicalized is a good thing.

Why it failed: It was too inclusive to too many different sects and they never got any good press.


To inclusive? Who should be excluded and who should do the excluding? There's no particular group in the US fit to haul The Left together into an effective bloc from what I can see. And no enough of a Left to matter even if they did.

Spreading ideas is step 0 of creating those things.
 
2013-09-09 01:25:58 PM

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

That we have made dumb choices before does not mean this one is a dumb idea.


Then supposing we really do have "pure" motives this time, what exactly is bombing Assad going to accomplish?  Bear in mind that the forces arrayed against him are radicalized Muslims, including al Qaeda.  Do we really want to give weapons and training to al Qaeda?  Do we want al Qaeda to Islamify Syria the way the Imams have in Iran?
 
2013-09-09 01:31:01 PM

Ned Stark: To inclusive? Who should be excluded and who should do the excluding? There's no particular group in the US fit to haul The Left together into an effective bloc from what I can see. And no enough of a Left to matter even if they did.

Spreading ideas is step 0 of creating those things.


When voting breaks down because people refuse to vote on whether or not level 3 sex offenders should be allowed on the occupy encampment, those people holding up the proceedings should have been ushered out immediately. They were not.
 
2013-09-09 01:42:54 PM
Gotta agree with The Rude Pundit on this one...(scroll down to 9/3 "Sorry, but fark Syria:" )

There's a shiatload of problems in THIS country that we supposedly can't afford to fix...but there's plenty of money to kill more brown people by blowing them up?

Sorry, not buying it.

If you want to get Biblical...we've got a huge-ass 2' X 4' in our own eye...We've no business fussing about the 'splinter' (OK, so it's a BIG damn splinter, but still...) in Syria's.
 
2013-09-09 01:49:38 PM

Infernalist: Dog Welder: Our allies in NATO and the U.N. (except France) don't seem to see any compelling reason to move forward on this.  There is no compelling proof put forward that Assad ordered a chemical weapon attack (other than Obama and the warhawks telling us they have it).  Additionallly, Al Qaeda insurgents are fighting on the side of the rebels at this point.

We should not be attacking Assad's forces until we have a more compelling reason.  We've stood by and watched people get slaughtered in North Korea, Darfur and numerous other countries.  If the U.N. is not yet compelled to enter Syria, we should stay out.

Dude, flip over to Cnn.com

It's over.  Syria's agreeing to turn over their CWs to the UN.  The main basis for the proposed attacks is all but resolved.


Which is excellent news.

Also...I don't think anyone was denying Syria has chemical weapons.  It's obvious they do.  As I pointed out in another thread, they've never signed the U.N. treaty that bans chemical weapons.  Additionally, it's not beyond the realm of reason that rebel forces have either made or confiscated some chemical weaponry.  Syria is a complete farking mess right now.

My question was always whether or not there is definitive proof that Assad dropped chemical weapons on his own troops and people.

So, now that this crisis is over, we can get back to doing what we do:  ignoring the slaughter that's been going on in Syria for over two years.
 
2013-09-09 01:54:19 PM

Marcus Aurelius: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: 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.

That we have made dumb choices before does not mean this one is a dumb idea.

Then supposing we really do have "pure" motives this time, what exactly is bombing Assad going to accomplish?  Bear in mind that the forces arrayed against him are radicalized Muslims, including al Qaeda.  Do we really want to give weapons and training to al Qaeda?  Do we want al Qaeda to Islamify Syria the way the Imams have in Iran?


Dissuade him and other would-be tyrants form using chemical weapons.  That should be the goal.  I'm anti-war.  I was against the Iraq war even when I thought they had WMD.  However, I support air strikes against forces using chemical weapons to kill their own people.  How al Qaeda is involved should have little bearing on what the US does.  You don't let you enemies dictate your next steps.
 
2013-09-09 02:08:44 PM

Infernalist: This thing is getting resolved without strikes.  Assad is giving up his CWs.


What are the odds that he gives up ALL of them.

/I don't think we should invade, but I'm sure he'll have them stashed somewhere or just move them to an allied country.
 
2013-09-09 02:10:04 PM

mrshowrules: You don't let you enemies dictate your next steps.


So, Congress doesn't get to vote on it?
 
2013-09-09 02:20:52 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.


Then the world needs to step up instead of sitting back waiting on the U.S. to do something.
 
2013-09-09 02:24:28 PM

Infernalist: 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


China would like a word with you.
 
2013-09-09 02:26:49 PM

stevetherobot: Infernalist: 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

China would like a word with you.


When they have a comparable navy and can project force around the globe as effectively as we can, then they can have 'superpower' status.  Until then, they're an economic power, and maybe a threat to Russia militarily speaking, but that's it.
 
2013-09-09 02:29:19 PM

Infernalist: Sincerely, people....

For once, just for a little while...stop the bullshiat.  We're looking at something close to a perfect solution to this Syrian mess and you people are still snarling and snapping at each other.

Take five seconds and try to realize that we may well be looking at this thing getting resolved with all parties getting what they want...well aside from the rebels and fark them.

Take a breath and just...relax.  Just for a little bit.


Yabbut it means I gotta say thankya to that wretched commie bastid Pootie.

WELL THANK YA, POOTIE.

Ya did yerself a solid and kinda sorta maybe benefited us too a little bit.
 
2013-09-09 02:31:43 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.


The world has long been fine with governments killing their own people. Unless we're willing to truly have a one world government, it will stay that way.
 
2013-09-09 02:33:32 PM
Just in case anyone would care to become slightly more informed on this subject, here's some very good analysis of the situation in Syria.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/your-labor- da y-syria-reader-part-2-william-polk/279255/
 
2013-09-09 02:35:58 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.


Shoot, stab, burn, blow up and starve 100,000 people and it's all good. Gas a couple thousand and "It's on outrage!"
 
2013-09-09 03:08:59 PM

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


Well we did, except it was to give him intelligence to better target his attacks, oops.
 
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