Post by: Hornblower on September 08, 2008, 10:27:46 AM
"This commercial was done by a local kid. You have to watch the whole thing. When he finishes talking and walks away, you get a sense of how this could be the commercial of the campaign season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
Post by: Scout26 on September 08, 2008, 10:38:55 AM
Post by: freedom lover on September 08, 2008, 10:40:18 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on September 08, 2008, 10:40:59 AM
I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.
You can't ignore the forest fire until it gets to your doorstep, or you'll have no hope of stopping it.
Also, four letters for you to consider.
ICBM.
Post by: silliman89 on September 08, 2008, 10:41:41 AM
You might want to rethink calling him a kid though. What definition of a man could you possibly have that this guy hasn't met?
Post by: Boomhauer on September 08, 2008, 10:44:49 AM
Quote
I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.
Ah, let me take you back to the time that we finally realized the great big ol' oceans no longer protected us.
December 7, 1941.
'Nuff said.
Post by: freedom lover on September 08, 2008, 11:12:05 AM
Quote
You can't ignore the forest fire until it gets to your doorstep, or you'll have no hope of stopping it.
Also, four letters for you to consider. ICBM.
Also, four letters for you to consider. ICBM.
As far as we know he had no ICBMs. As for the threat, we know he had chemical weapons, but he had no way of attacking the US with them. I do admit that the base they found could have been Al Queda's, but the idea that a paranoid dictator would have worked with guys who could have caused the US to reign fire on him is silly.
As for nukes, all that we have is the word of an expatriot that the two trucks American SF guys found gutted in the desert formerly contained centrifuges. If my guess is correct the war has not protected us at all.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 08, 2008, 11:29:31 AM
Quote
I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.
Ah, let me take you back to the time that we finally realized the great big ol' oceans no longer protected us.
December 7, 1941.
'Nuff said.
This is not WWII. The Islamic terrorists are not, were not, and will never be a threat comparable to the Nazis.
Post by: K Frame on September 08, 2008, 11:32:46 AM
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
Post by: Manedwolf on September 08, 2008, 11:34:23 AM
Actually, in the United States, they're significantly more of a threat than the Nazis ever were.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
Yup. Nobody else since the British has EVER hit the US mainland like that. Not till 2001.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 08, 2008, 11:39:14 AM
Yet they built a modern military, crossed the oceans, and gave us one heck of a bloody nose. Plus, they put up very heavy resistance up until Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened.
Post by: freedom lover on September 08, 2008, 11:42:38 AM
Post by: Scout26 on September 08, 2008, 11:45:15 AM
I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.
IIRC, we imposed "Freedom" on Germany, Italy and Japan after WWII. Since then, they've pretty much left their neighbors alone. Prior to that they had spent several decades (and centuries) invading their neighbors.
Post by: Lennyjoe on September 08, 2008, 11:52:53 AM
Quote
You all probably just think I'm crazy. I aint
Crazy, no. Uninformed, yes.Dubya did what Clinton and crew did not. When Saddam surrendered after the first Gulf War he agreed to a set of surrender rules. Shortly after Bush Sr. left office he gave us and the UN the middle finger. Violated them there rules of surrender for far too long. Clinton didn't do *expletive deleted*it so someone had to. I'm glad Dubya made the decision to go in. Just wish he would of used that for a reason instead of the other.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 08, 2008, 11:59:50 AM
Actually, in the United States, they're significantly more of a threat than the Nazis ever were.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
Yup. Nobody else since the British has EVER hit the US mainland like that. Not till 2001.
They hit the US mainland. Twice within the span of eight years. They killed a lot of people. But the personal tragedies of these people's families - which needed to be addressed - and the horror of the crime - for which the perpetrators needed to be brought to justice - do not translate into a threat to the very existence of the United States in the way the Soviets and the Japanese posed one (by the way, the US started addressing the Japanese threat starting with the first Roosevelt).
Post by: Manedwolf on September 08, 2008, 12:26:49 PM
Actually, in the United States, they're significantly more of a threat than the Nazis ever were.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
Yup. Nobody else since the British has EVER hit the US mainland like that. Not till 2001.
They hit the US mainland. Twice within the span of eight years. They killed a lot of people. But the personal tragedies of these people's families - which needed to be addressed - and the horror of the crime - for which the perpetrators needed to be brought to justice - do not translate into a threat to the very existence of the United States in the way the Soviets and the Japanese posed one (by the way, the US started addressing the Japanese threat starting with the first Roosevelt).
Actually, it's worse. Japan was another nation we could see and fight with, between troops, planes, and ships.
The Islamist terrorists are HERE.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 08, 2008, 12:53:27 PM
. . . while waiting on our economy to collapse . . .
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 08, 2008, 12:54:06 PM
Actually, in the United States, they're significantly more of a threat than the Nazis ever were.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
Yup. Nobody else since the British has EVER hit the US mainland like that. Not till 2001.
They hit the US mainland. Twice within the span of eight years. They killed a lot of people. But the personal tragedies of these people's families - which needed to be addressed - and the horror of the crime - for which the perpetrators needed to be brought to justice - do not translate into a threat to the very existence of the United States in the way the Soviets and the Japanese posed one (by the way, the US started addressing the Japanese threat starting with the first Roosevelt).
But let me ask you this: does it actually matter whether they can threaten the very existence of the United States? Obviously they can threaten the existence of thousands of people. That much we've seen. Isn't that a threat worth paying attention to, worth reacting to, worth defending against?
Do you think that the government's job is only to protect the government as a whole? Should the government ignore a threat to most of it's citizens?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 08, 2008, 12:54:39 PM
The islamic terrorists, specifically the same folks that were around for 9/11, are not here. There might be a few that followed us into Iraq. But, I'll wager that most of them are crouched in a cave somewhere in Pakistan sipping tea and snacking on crumpets, smoking dope and beating their wives . . .
. . . while waiting on our economy to collapse . . .
I hope they're a patient bunch.... . . while waiting on our economy to collapse . . .
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 08, 2008, 12:58:51 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 08, 2008, 01:01:08 PM
I hope China and Japan are, too. Gonna take a few generations of tax dollars to pay them back.
At the rate they're going, our debt obligations to them may be the only real assets they have left. China's stock market is down 50% on the year. Japan hasn't had a thriving economy in 20 years.
Post by: GigaBuist on September 08, 2008, 06:09:13 PM
Actually, in the United States, they're significantly more of a threat than the Nazis ever were.
They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
In terms of those killed, yes, you're correct. By that metric MS-13 is more a more significant threat than the Axis powers were.They've already proven that beyond all doubt.
The Axis powers had millions of troops, fuel supply lines, tanks, battle ships, air forces, etc.
The jihadi's have rental vehicles and air plane tickets.
There's probably a cheaper way of dealing with them than our current plan.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 08, 2008, 06:55:24 PM
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 08, 2008, 06:56:55 PM
Post by: Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas on September 08, 2008, 07:24:40 PM
Quote
I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.
It's a good thing the French didn't see things that way back in the 1780s.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 08, 2008, 07:41:52 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 09, 2008, 03:00:36 AM
Quote
I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.
It's a good thing the French didn't see things that way back in the 1780s. The French had a very bloody revolution when they went back home. As it turns out, while they were away fighting for someone else's freedom in the service of King Louis XVI, things went sour back at the ranch. They really couldn't afford to send the troops in the first place, as King Louis XV had bankrupted the treasury.
Just have to throw that in there, because, if you want to compare us to the French, we should know their history (and, no, not just the parts we like) before we're 'doomed to repeat it.' You'll find that some contributing factors of our own revolution can be traced back to deficits accrued while fighting native tribes along the Appalacia during the French and Indian War. I see parallels forming.
I don't dispute that it would have been a very, very tough fight for us in the war for independence had the French not jumped in, if it would have been winnable at all.
Yet, when you compare how strongly we wanted freedom and the steps we took to get there (from fighting a better-equipped contingent of British troops at Lexington and Concord to winning a decisive victory at Saratoga before the French would even consider sending troops), versus how very little the Iraqis ever demonstrated any action towards deposing their tyrant, well . . . aside from a few Kurdish tribes in norther Iraq, I'm not convinced that there are a lot of Iraqis that have the will to sacrifice to obtain freedom as the veteran in this 'commercial.' Perhaps they value life more than liberty, which is their decision, which is fine unless they expect someone else to die for their freedom.
Besides, Saddamn has been gone for a few years now. If the Iraqis want sovereign control of their country, there's nothing holding them back.
Or, is there?
Post by: Ezekiel on September 09, 2008, 03:02:01 AM
"This commercial was done by a local kid. You have to watch the whole thing. When he finishes talking and walks away, you get a sense of how this could be the commercial of the campaign season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
Actually, the propaganda was nearly enough to make me vomit. He should have said:
"After spending 12 months deployed to somewhere I never should have been, in a desperate attempt to validate myself and the needless death of others, I have lost -- if I ever possessed -- the ability to independently analyze our/my actions." He's a dumbass: noble(?) sacrifice does not impart validity to an action.
To compare Iraq (himself) and Vietnam (McCain) is valid, but it only leads to two, possible, conclusions. Either the two (Iraq/Vietnam) are not alike (undermining his "McCain knows worthy sacrifice" self-drama), or both are a quagmire (meaning "McCain knows unworthy sacrifice," like me). Either way, bad news.
Or, I guess, he could be one of the nutjobs that thinks Vietnam was actually good for our safety, psyche, and that we actually defended something... Which means that this deluded uber-patriot likely supports other idiotic land wars in Asia...
1. If the Iraqi people want "freedom to prosper," it is THEIR burden to achieve it.
2. Are Iraqis better today than 2002? What about Americans?
3. And, YES, you DO rescue a fireman, if the strategic cost is too big. (Further, when did troops become firemen?)
4. When the Iraqi psuedo-war is called a "mistake," you dishonor nobody, and PROTECT those that could be asked to sacrifice and die to invest further in the rabbit hole.
5. Freedom carries a price, but Iraqi freedom is not our price to bear. Further, it is not as if we are there to promote "freedom." In fact, as long as we're there, their not free: oxymoron.
He can vote for whom he desires, but this guy needs an enema and patriotic detox.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 09, 2008, 03:12:33 AM
I do, however, question the motives of his commander in chief, who, probably fits your title.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 09, 2008, 03:14:42 AM
I don't think the vet in the youtube clip is a 'dumbass.' In fact, I genuinely think he believes in his heart that he is doing the right thing.
I do, however, question the motives of his commander in chief, who, probably fits your title.
I do, however, question the motives of his commander in chief, who, probably fits your title.
I see your point: I was harsh.
But the fact that, even removed, he cannot see the idiocy, is his burden to carry.
It smacks of either brainwashing, or low IQ, to graft nobility onto something in order to justify it.
Post by: wmenorr67 on September 09, 2008, 03:24:30 AM
Quote
It smacks of either brainwashing, or low IQ, to graft nobility onto something in order to justify it.
Being that youtube is blocked on government systems I have not seen the video in question. However, Zeke are you trying to say that you have either been brainwashed or have a low IQ to be in the military? I hope not.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 09, 2008, 03:28:14 AM
Quote
It smacks of either brainwashing, or low IQ, to graft nobility onto something in order to justify it.
Being that youtube is blocked on government systems I have not seen the video in question. However, Zeke are you trying to say that you have either been brainwashed or have a low IQ to be in the military? I hope not.
I 100% am NOT.
But this guy refuses to think. At all. About anything.
Bureaucracy does that to people, so folks generate "justifications." Like, for example, "I, and others like me, am heroic and our Mission is grand."
Post by: K Frame on September 09, 2008, 06:01:26 AM
The guy obviously has thought about it. Long and hard, and sees a very different picture.
You decry him for "justifying" what is going on.
You're no different.
YOUR blatant justification, though, which you're applying to justify your position, is that you are somehow free of the "brainwashing" and "low IQ" you claim to be necessary to hold the convictions that this individual holds.
What you're doing is no different than what you're accusing this guy of doing.
What's pathetic, though, is that your IQ isn't quite high enough to realize that you're doing it, and you, or someone else, has brainwashed you into believing that you're somehow the only person who is thinking clearly about the subject.
How... cute.
Post by: K Frame on September 09, 2008, 06:40:36 AM
Until one of them gets hold of a nuclear device.
I hold no illusions at all. Unless there is active and protractive efforts to prevent it, that WILL happen.
Sometimes going the cheap route is the WORST possible thing you can do.
Hell, the United States found that out in the run in to World War II.
And the MS-13 analogy is not applicable or valid.
MS-13 has never given, as its primary professed aim, domination of the entire world (Nazis) or the destruction of the United States (Islamic terrorists).
Post by: Ezekiel on September 09, 2008, 06:57:35 AM
The guy obviously has thought about it. Long and hard, and sees a very different picture.
Sure. He's just wrong.
You decry him for "justifying" what is going on.
Yes.
You're no different.
Oh, we're vastly different.
YOUR blatant justification, though, which you're applying to justify your position, is that you are somehow free of the "brainwashing" and "low IQ" you claim to be necessary to hold the convictions that this individual holds.
I presume that MANY people are.
What you're doing is no different than what you're accusing this guy of doing.
Other than the inherent validity of being right.
What's pathetic, though, is that your IQ isn't quite high enough to realize that you're doing it, and you, or someone else, has brainwashed you into believing that you're somehow the only person who is thinking clearly about the subject.
Oh, there are MANY others.
How... cute.
Ah, yes. One of those posts I find to be somewhat humorous.
Post by: Boomhauer on September 09, 2008, 07:02:26 AM
Quote
Sometimes going the cheap route is the WORST possible thing you can do.
Hell, the United States found that out in the run in to World War II.
Hell, the United States found that out in the run in to World War II.
Consider the airplanes and tanks that we had at the beginning of and throughout the war. The Axis developed pretty good airplanes, and the Germans went on to build some pretty good tanks and they revolutionized armored warfare.
Before WWII, we tried to save money by buying the cheapest airplanes. The Germans had the Bf-109. Not the best, but good enough. The Japanese had the Zero. Both outfought our fighters at the beginning of the war. The Zero was a very rude shock.
We tried to save money by sticking with pathetic tanks. We went up against the Germans in the hedgrow with the POS M4 Sherman, which fared extremely poorly against the superior German armor. A lot of US tankers lost their lives thanks to the decisions of people like Patton, who thought that the speed of the M4 would make up for its great shortcomings. Fortunatly, our massive number of tanks coupled with supporting forces (tank destroyers, air, infantry, and artillery) made up for it, but at a cost.
We had serious problems early in the war due to very poor equipment because we thought that we wouldn't get involved in another world war, and we were reluctant to spend the money necessary for modern equipment that was the equivalent or better than Axis equipment.
In regards to the aircraft, we did produce better once the war started, and we were much better off towards the end of the war, plus, our supply of capable pilots did not suffer like the Axis countries did, and we had plenty of fuel.
As for the tanks, we basically stuck with the M4. We did produce the M-26 towards the end of the war, but not in the huge numbers we did with the M4. By the time it came into service, the war was pretty much over.
Quote
MS-13 has never given, as its primary professed aim, domination of the entire world (Nazis) or the destruction of the United States (Islamic terrorists).
Islamic terrorists desire domination of the entire world. Currently, one of their major goals is the destruction of the United States. Because we are one of their greatest obstacles.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 09, 2008, 07:26:59 AM
What you're doing is no different than what you're accusing this guy of doing.
Other than the inherent validity of being right.
You just repeat the same (erroneous) declarations over and over again, as if repetition amounts to intelligent thought.
Mike has you dead to rights. It isn't the Iraqi vet who demonstrates low IQ and brainwashing, it's you.
Post by: Ezekiel on September 09, 2008, 07:54:20 AM
It isn't the Iraqi vet who demonstrates low IQ and brainwashing, it's you.
By not thinking as an Iraqi vet? Odd.
Post by: K Frame on September 09, 2008, 07:58:33 AM
Before you post again, check your PMs.
Post by: Intune on September 09, 2008, 09:30:54 AM
Quote
...this guy needs an enema and patriotic detox.
I have always heard that there is a small, dedicated group of folks out there who are seriously dedicated to their colonics and recommend them as a pleasurable remedy for anything from a toothache to baldness. If the tube fits...What I can't really fathom though is how an American could possibly link patriotism to a bowel cleansing function. Further, and even more damaging, is the suggestion that patriotism should somehow be held in check and excess amounts flushed out with fecal matter in order to detoxify.
I posit that it is impossible to be too patriotic in regards to one's country. I love my country.
As an American and a veteran I am deeply offended by this portion of your post.
The man gave some reasons why he will vote McCain/Palin. He didn't threaten me at all. You obviously felt very differently.
Post by: Ex-MA Hole on September 09, 2008, 09:47:49 AM
Please accept my apologies for the views presented by a certain member of this forum.
Please reread the post above yours. Then read into it.
I assure you it won't happen again.
If it does, it will only be once more.
Thank you for your service. It allows people with limited brain power and thought process, as well as a basic Junior High discussion skills, to voice their (ignorant) opinion.
Best regards,
Mark
Post by: Intune on September 09, 2008, 10:46:47 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 09, 2008, 12:04:17 PM
Thank you for your service. It allows people with limited brain power and thought process, as well as a basic Junior High discussion skills, to voice their (ignorant) opinion.
Best regards,
Mark
Best regards,
Mark
Oh. Snap.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 09, 2008, 12:13:23 PM
From the Republican National Convention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGscsnUSBYQ
And this one, from the DNC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PjHQfoGctU (pardon the lethargic narrator)
I must admit, these kinds of things hit my patriotic nerves more than any candidate endorsement: Veterans defend the U.S. Constitution, literally
Whether you agree with them or not, they are among the few Americans willing to hold their elected leaders accountable to their duties and promises. In a time when corrupt politicians get re-elected election, after election, after election, I find that very refreshing.
Post by: Scout26 on September 09, 2008, 02:41:43 PM
Imagine what would have happened if the Britsh and French, would have said "NO" to the re-militarization of Rhineland ?? (Hitler and especially the Generals were prepared to fold like a cheap suit.) Or Said No to Anschluss of Austria ?? Or the Sudetenland or the rest of Czechoslovakia ?? At any point WWII could have been prevented and Hitler contained. But given the loss of life both countries suffered in WWI, they were afraid to risk confrontation with Germany. So we got a large war instead.
Iraq is that confrontation. Yes, it appears costly now, but we'll never what higher costs we have prevented.
Post by: coppertales on September 10, 2008, 08:00:55 AM
Post by: freedom lover on September 10, 2008, 09:58:18 AM
Quote
the MSN was almost successful covering up the 500 metric tons of yellowcake uranium that Sadam had in Iraq
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
Quote
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions...
The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions...
I may be wrong about Saddam's efforts to get a nuke. I know the Israelis blew up a nuclear facility of his a long time ago. I'll admit, non-interventionist foreign policy can only go so far. I just don't like the idea of America being Globocop.
Who or what are the MSN?
Post by: Intune on September 10, 2008, 10:44:05 AM
Quote
Who or what are the MSN?
MSN- Mendacious Salacious NewsthinkIts a shadowy group that uses a high noise-to-signal transmission that is targeted to only affect the brain function of ultra liberals. All reports indicate an incredibly high rate of success.
Post by: Dntsycnt on September 10, 2008, 01:54:06 PM
Quote
I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.
It's a good thing the French didn't see things that way back in the 1780s. ZING!
As for the video: Effective jab for emotional response, but not much appeal to reason. I guess that means it's perfect for this election.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 10, 2008, 03:05:01 PM
that means that a guy who has been there done that is not a big hit at the campus starbucks or student union, right?
Post by: Dntsycnt on September 10, 2008, 03:18:04 PM
"but not much appeal to reason."
that means that a guy who has been there done that is not a big hit at the campus starbucks or student union, right?
that means that a guy who has been there done that is not a big hit at the campus starbucks or student union, right?
Yep, that's exactly right, because I'm one of them egghead college boy democrats, and don't appreciate those injured/killed in Iraq/Afghanistan because I don't know any of them and don't care to. It's not like the video in question failed to address any policy issues and was used instead for emotional reaction and shock value.
Nope, me and my flip flop wearing, dope smoking buddies feel secure in our knowledge that because he doesn't support the Anointed One, he must be Wrong.
Post by: Werewolf on September 10, 2008, 05:12:33 PM
...It's not like the video in question failed to address any policy issues and was used instead for emotional reaction and shock value...
Kettle meet Pot!
Kind'a sucks for you Dems when a conservative turns around and uses your favorite tactics against ya, huh? Because that's just about all Dems do - tug at people's heart strings.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 10, 2008, 05:50:26 PM
...It's not like the video in question failed to address any policy issues and was used instead for emotional reaction and shock value...
Kettle meet Pot!
Kind'a sucks for you Dems when a conservative turns around and uses your favorite tactics against ya, huh? Because that's just about all Dems do - tug at people's heart strings.
Dntsycnts was a Dem? What now?
Post by: Dntsycnt on September 10, 2008, 06:44:11 PM
Maybe Werewolf misread my blatant sarcasm. Or maybe not agreeing with everything Republican 100 percent makes me an Evil Democrat.
I'm going to go write love letters to JFK and burn them with incense now. I need to find my Center.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 10, 2008, 07:06:54 PM
As for the video: Effective jab for emotional response, but not much appeal to reason. I guess that means it's perfect for this election.
If the purpose of the ad was to make the case for the Iraq war, you might have a point. In fact, it is meant to counter the fallacious emotional appeal of the anti-war side. Eg., "This war is bad because my son was killed," or "This war is only supported by chickenhawks and profiteers who haven't felt the pain it is causing."
Post by: The Annoyed Man on September 11, 2008, 02:48:18 AM
As for the video: Effective jab for emotional response, but not much appeal to reason. I guess that means it's perfect for this election.
If the purpose of the ad was to make the case for the Iraq war, you might have a point. In fact, it is meant to counter the fallacious emotional appeal of the anti-war side. Eg., "This war is bad because my son was killed," or "This war is only supported by chickenhawks and profiteers who haven't felt the pain it is causing."
Cheney appears relatively pain-free.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 11, 2008, 02:49:10 AM
As for the video: Effective jab for emotional response, but not much appeal to reason. I guess that means it's perfect for this election.
If the purpose of the ad was to make the case for the Iraq war, you might have a point. In fact, it is meant to counter the fallacious emotional appeal of the anti-war side. Eg., "This war is bad because my son was killed," or "This war is only supported by chickenhawks and profiteers who haven't felt the pain it is causing."
Cheney appears relatively pain-free.
Only is the key word.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 11, 2008, 08:30:33 AM
If the purpose of the ad was to make the case for the Iraq war, you might have a point. In fact, it is meant to counter the fallacious emotional appeal of the anti-war side. Eg., "This war is bad because my son was killed," or "This war is only supported by chickenhawks and profiteers who haven't felt the pain it is causing."
Cheney appears relatively pain-free.
I didn't say that Cheney lost his leg. The point of the commercial (or one of them) is that many of those who "paid the price" for the Iraq War support it, and were adamantly opposed to any withdrawal, without a clear victory.
Post by: ArfinGreebly on September 11, 2008, 11:09:33 AM
"Life is pain . . . anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something."
Among these "modern thinkers" is the contingent who believe that "pain" is what happens when someone disagrees with them, and the penalty for causing that kind of pain ought to be death, or at least destruction.
According to this "modern thought," civilization makes violence obsolete, and all conflict should be resolved through ambassadors of one kind or another.
Having to fight for my freedom and the lives and freedom of my family, my nation, and my culture, scares me to death. I'm pretty much a coward on that front.
Come the day, however, when the choice is between standing in the breach and having my grandchildren live in slavery . . . I hope to God I have the strength to die with dignity.
People who choose to fight for their homes and their families when they could just as easily skate, those guys have my undying respect.
They are bigger men than I am, and than I'll likely ever be.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 11, 2008, 11:22:56 AM
Or rather, civilization and its history is the story of LIMITING and channeling our use of violence.
Where people who limit their use of violence - for example, to punishing crime and defending life and liberty - there you have civilization.
Where people use ulimited violence to resolve their differences, to exterminate those who are not like them, then these people are savages and should themselves be met with steel, lead, and fire, no matter how delicate their tastes in art or how refined these manners.
Post by: Paragon on September 11, 2008, 11:25:26 AM
Post by: Werewolf on September 11, 2008, 01:05:32 PM
News to me.
Maybe Werewolf misread my blatant sarcasm.
That's exactly what I did except I wouldn't exactly call it blatant. Could you be a bit more subtle next time? Maybe Werewolf misread my blatant sarcasm.
Post by: MicroBalrog on November 07, 2008, 05:59:26 PM
<div class="quoteheader">Quote</div><div class="quote">I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.</div>It's a good thing the French didn't see things that way back in the 1780s.
And remember what it did to THEIR government?
Post by: Nick1911 on November 07, 2008, 06:12:36 PM
Crap, "The Annoyed Man" popped up again. I thought I fixed all those...
Post by: Mabs2 on November 07, 2008, 07:16:22 PM
Post by: taurusowner on November 07, 2008, 09:50:35 PM
I can tell you one thing for sure. American soldiers dying and our goverment creating massive debt is not worth the freedom of any foreigner. We should defend only ourselves. All other people should either fight for their own freedom or be damned.
NM. Already been said by others.