Little Alex

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 1:15 AM GMT
    Has anyone seen the Move-On dot Org ad about Little Alex and his mother?

    What does that ad say to you?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 3:27 AM GMT

    I just saw this on the WRONG site. it was some horrible red-neck war loving site. They were slamming the makers of the ad, the people in it, and everyone against the war...pricks.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 3:32 AM GMT
    Can i get a link to the ad?
  • NYCguy74

    Posts: 311

    Jun 20, 2008 3:39 AM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 3:52 AM GMT
    thank you
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 4:14 AM GMT
    ..............................."You can't have him, I'm the one you want, take me!"
    ...............................
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 4:25 AM GMT
    I think the ad makes for an excellent counter attack by John McCain.

    First off, when Alex is of military age, it will be his decision to serve or not serve. Unless of course the Congressional Democrats get their way and reinstate the draft.

    We Republicans don't want draftees serving in our military.

    Then there's the issue of; what makes her Alex so special?

    And finally, Does this Mother think she can control her son when he's eighteen? And if she does, does that indicate the typical control freak nature of the Democratic party?

    This ad is an easy target.





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 5:29 AM GMT
    John, I think this is why the Republicans are going to lose this election. Thanks for clarifying the debate.

    If the ad was somehow about the son's choice to join the army or something, you'd almost have a point.

    But it's about fighting in a preemptive war. She doesn't want her son in a war, and she'll vote for the candidate most likely to ensure it won't happen. How will this prevent him from entering military service? It won't. So what's your point about Democrats being control freaks?

    You like war?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 10:58 AM GMT
    I think some people pose as being pro-war as they think it makes them seem more butch, tough, macho when in reality it just makes them seem like someone posing.

    You have to be a moron to want to go someplace where bullets are flying and bombs are dropping or popping in the ground. It doesn't make you tough, it makes you an idiot.

    It doesn't make you courageous, either. Courage that comes from the trigger side of a gun (or it's equivalent) is pussy courage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 2:23 PM GMT
    Al Qaeda just loves guys like you, you give them hope.
    The Change you support is a stronger Al Qaeda terrorist network, and a nukyular Iran.

    The fact still remains, it's the Democrats who would draft Lil Alex, not us Republicans. If lil Alex doesn't wanna serve, he isn't needed anyway.

    Lucky for us most people weren't like you guys in the early 40s, the Nazis and the Japs would still be fighting along the Mississippi river over control of the continent.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 2:31 PM GMT
    I'd guess AQ loves you more, John. They're probably thrilled that our econ sucks, we have a functional illiterate as chief of staff and are paying through the nose at the pump. I'd say they want you to suck them off to prove how much they love you. Not to mention how the US military machine keeps proving how ineffective they are against the current mode of warfare.
  • Squarejaw

    Posts: 1035

    Jun 20, 2008 2:41 PM GMT
    John43620 saidLucky for us most people weren't like you guys in the early 40s, the Nazis and the Japs would still be fighting along the Mississippi river over control of the continent.
    John, Bush attacked Iraq (which had no connection to Al Qaeda) before securing the victory in Afghanistan, and now the Taliban is retaking the country.

    So, to borrow from your analogy, if Bush had been president in the 40s/50s, we'd have been bogged down in a ground war with the Soviets while the Nazis were retaking Germany.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 2:58 PM GMT
    If Bush had been president in the 40s/50s Bush would be saying "mission accomplished" in German.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 3:17 PM GMT
    It looks like you two just don't keep up on current events, Al Qaeda is getting a major butt kicking in Iraq. Iraq is destroying Al Qaeda. The Taliban captured two villages last week and NATO took them back and killed a lot of Taliban fighters doing so. The Taliban are nowhere near taking over Afghanistan.

    It is true that Al Qaeda probably wasn't in Iraq when we invaded, but Saddam supported many of the same terrorists groups that fall under the Al Qaeda network of scumbags. Iraq became a magnet for Al Qaeda and they've lost thousands of fighters and even more deserted and left Al Qaeda. Terrorists are all about PR and Iraq has been some seriously bad PR for Al Qaeda.

    The invasion of Iraq is a success story. Well, for those of us who enjoy freedom and liberty. You Democrats backed the losing side, Al Qaeda, just like you did the Soviet Union.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 3:28 PM GMT
    Bullshit. If the whitehouse's lips are moving, it's lying. If dubya gump calls anything a success, it's a failure. Mission accomplished, remember?
  • yogadudeSEATT...

    Posts: 373

    Jun 20, 2008 3:28 PM GMT
    John43620 said

    The invasion of Iraq is a success story.



    You're right, John. Iraq is a success story. It was on the front page of the New York Times just yesterday. The 5 major US oil companies are on the verge of getting no bid contracts on Iraq's oil. This was the reason Bush went in, and now he has what he wanted. Iraq is a success story. Blood for oil, that's something to be proud of, John.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 4:11 PM GMT
    cosmicjewboy said

    You're right, John. Iraq is a success story. It was on the front page of the New York Times just yesterday. The 5 major US oil companies are on the verge of getting no bid contracts on Iraq's oil.


    I believe the phrase is "Oh snap!"
  • HereNBoston

    Posts: 221

    Jun 20, 2008 7:56 PM GMT
    what's funny about the entire situation to me is that the US is in negotiations with Iraq over over the new security agreement that expired. The US wants the right to set up a lot more bases than the Iraqis are comfortable with and obviously more foreign troops than the iraqis want. The question of immunity from prosecution is also in question. The US wants all contractors to be immune when it comes to iraqi law, and also wants to freely detain iraqi citizens without consent of the iraqi government.

    I haven't seen too much press over this lately...

    Is it still considered defeat if the Iraqi's want us to start letting them run their own country?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 8:06 PM GMT
    John,

    I think you miss the point of the commercial. Or, at least, you miss the target audience. The target audience is. . . Mom. No mother wants her child to go to war. Period. Particularly a relatively young Mom with young children -- one who's looking down the road a few years. And particularly a war as highly questionable as this one (opposed by 70% of Americans). The comments from the Mom in the commercial are probably a reasonable representation of that reality. Actually, it's a pretty effective spot.

    I think it was Eleanor Roosevelt who said (paraphrasing here): "If all the mothers in the world organized, there would never be another war anytime, anywhere." She might've been right.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2008 8:06 PM GMT
    HereNBoston,

    Immunity would be ideal for them, but since contractors aren't likely to get that any time soon might they be willing to settle for Sharia law?
    Blackwater, the para-military contracting firm is asking that a lawsuit for the unlawful death of three people be decided by Islamic Sharia law because the crime took place in Afghanastan.

    Talk about Chutzpah!
  • OptimusMatt

    Posts: 1124

    Jun 20, 2008 8:35 PM GMT
    So does it make me a bad person because I'm seriously considering serving in the Canadian Forces after I'm done university because they offer the job in counter-terrorism I so very much want?

    It's not just the uneducated that join the military.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 1:56 AM GMT
    Why even debate these points?
    Homosexuals will overwhelmingly vote democratic regardless of the candidate.
    The best arguments will only be spun to fit one's belief system.
    It's an exercise in futility.
  • SkyMiles

    Posts: 963

    Jun 21, 2008 2:26 AM GMT
    Spin is one thing, facts are another.

    These are facts:

    655,000: Iraqi deaths a Johns-Hopkins study attributed to the war nine months ago.

    2770: Iraqi civilians killed in May 2007, according to government reports. (Actual figure unknown because the Iraqi government refuses to share its data with outside agencies that could verify totals.)

    1.9 million: Estimated Iraqis displaced within the country.

    2.35 million: Estimated Iraqi exiles outside the country in January 2007.

    18,000: Iraqi doctors who have fled the country since March 2003.

    ???: Iraqis orphaned by the war – no reliable statistics.

    25%: Iraqi children who are malnourished (May 2006).

    130,000: U.S. troops taking part in the invasion at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's insistence.

    500,000: U.S. troops estimated to be necessary by generals who put together a prewar contingency plan.

    $60-$95 billion: Total cost of Iraq war and aftermath calculated by Paul Wolfowitz in February 2003.

    $600 billion: Money Congress has allocated for direct costs of the war and occupation so far.

    $750 billion: Total the Cheney-Bush Administration has sought for keeping the occupation going through September 2008.

    $140,000: Estimated cost per minute of the war and occupation in 2007.

    $2 trillion: Total direct and indirect costs of war and occupation (through 2010) calculated by Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Blimes in January 2006.

    $9 billion: Taxpayer money that disappeared in Iraq.

    $549.7 million: Value of unaccounted for spare parts shipped to contractors in 2004.

    $1.4 billion: Overcharges by Halliburton.

    6,000-10,000: Estimated number of U.S. troops whose injuries have included brain trauma.

    30%: Estimated percentage of troops who develop serious mental problems within three or four months after returning from Iraq.

    14: Journalists killed by U.S. forces in Iraq.

    112: Total number of journalists killed in Iraq.

    1-2 a day: Hours of electricity available to the average residential household in Baghdad. (Actual figure unknown since U.S. no longer reports the electricity figures for the city.)

    5000: "Diehard" insurgents the Pentagon estimated to be fighting on July 28, 2003.

    20-30,000: Insurgents the Pentagon estimated in October 2006.

    70,000: Insurgents the Pentagon estimated in March 2007.

    69%: Iraqis who say U.S. presence worsens security situation (polled in March 2007).

    71%: Iraqis who want U.S. troops out within a year (polled in September 2006).

    71%: Americans who want U.S. to withdraw troops by April 2008 (polled in July 2007).

    52%: U.S. Senators who have voted to withdraw most troops by April 2008.

    8%: Republican Senators who have voted to withdraw most troops by April 2008

    If this is what "success" in Iraq looks like to anybody, I don't want to know what they think failure is. Al Qaida may be finished in Iraq, but then, they were never IN that country until we invaded, so what, exactly, did we achieve?

    Meanwhile, the fact that the Taliban can still launch attacks in battalion strength, raise cash, recruit fighters and control territory THIS long after we moved in to oust them should tell you something about the scale of just how f*cked up things are in Afganistan.

    Oh, and does anyone remember the original premise for invading Iraq in the first place? And how it turned out to be outright bullshit.
    Alex's mom is right not to want to send her son off to war; not for this.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 4:08 AM GMT
    John43620 said...Al Qaeda is getting a major butt kicking in Iraq...You Democrats backed the losing side, Al Qaeda, just like you did the Soviet Union.

    This is why Republicans will lose. You think a commercial about war is about the troops. You think a war for oil is about Al Qaeda. Sure Al Qaeda is getting their butt kicked; they were never a big threat in Iraq.

    You can't amputate an arm to get rid of a rash and call yourself a successful dermatologist. It appears math is your biggest enemy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 21, 2008 4:25 AM GMT
    John...you are royally f*cked up and I want to know what happened. Perhaps then you won't be such an easy target.