Outrageous Republican Song Billboard Draws Flak from Both Sides

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stevento, Jul 16, 2008.

  1. stevento macrumors 6502


    Dec 10, 2006
    Los Angeles
    Check this out
    I still maintain my position that its actually the republicans that have dropped the ball on keeping America safe. It is the right wing who have responded to terrorism exactly the way bin Laden wants and their policies have strengthened our enemies.

    We did have a republican President a that time, he had a report come across his desk saying bin Laden determined to attack inside US, and he did nothing about it. Then he sat in a classroom doing nothing for 7 minutes when he heard of the attack.
    Why do all these republicans say it was Bill Clinton's fault that 9/11 slipped through our fingers. Bush was in office for 8 months preceding the attack.

    Republicans like to say "we were attacked in 2001 and bush started the war on terror, and we haven't been attacked since. so obviously it's working and bush is keeping america safe!"
    i don't even know where to start on that.
  2. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040


    Sep 29, 2005
    Stevento: How do you feel about Hillary losing the nomination?

    When you're speaking of American soil, there have been no more attacks in the U.S. since 9/11.

    Do we know how many memos/warnings that the President receives per a certain time period? This is a serious question. With AQ constantly threatening the U.S. along with every other anarchist/revolutionary nut, I seriously wonder how many warnings the President, any President, gets during a certain time period...

    This was always a ridiculous emotional appeal "argument" to me. What could he have done in seven minutes? The police/firefighters were already dispatched, I really fail to see how seven minutes of him "not sitting in a classroom" would have done anything.

    I don't know, but maybe a logical rebuttal if you can think of one.

    Also, way to take a quote completely out of context. The owner of the billboards, however right or wrong his opinion may be, was obviously talking about the President BEFORE Bush. If you had read the article, you'd have known that:

  3. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    That's some pretty specious reasoning.
  4. .Andy macrumors 68030


    Jul 18, 2004
    The Mergui Archipelago
  5. skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan
    Those whom you call terrorists do not have to attack on American soil any more. Their point has been made. Now all they have to do is keep the US spending unsustainable amounts on fighting abroad and curtailing the liberties of its people at home, and their victory is practically assured. Neat, isn't it?
  6. Prof. macrumors 601


    Aug 17, 2007
    That billboard is the saddest thing I have ever seen in my entire life. It just goes to show you how desperate the Republicans really are and how low they are willing to go. They're losing and they know it and they're gonna take any means necessary to (try) win.
  7. és: macrumors 6502a


    I've seen some **** throwing in political campaigns over the years, but that is utterly contemptable.

    I think most of the people around the world know that the Republicans make the world less safe.
  8. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    And you make this statement based on?
  9. edesignuk Moderator emeritus


    Mar 25, 2002
    London, England
  10. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    Well, you know what they say, "When you hit rock bottom, start digging".
  11. és: macrumors 6502a


    1. The current republican starting two wars and appears to be trying to instigate a third.
    2. Hatred of the United states in the muslim world is higher than it's ever been. The threat of terrorism to the US and UK is way higher because of this hatred caused by poor decisions made by the republican president.
    3. The Republican nominee is "a war criminal that bombed innocent women and children"
    4. The republican nominee stood up and sang 'Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran'. Something he is proud of
    5. He is willing to let the Iraq war drag on for ''100 years'.

    There are more.
  12. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    That's two Republicans, including one who isn't very popular in his own party. I don't think that makes for an open condemnation of the entire party, much less with a virtually unquantifiable statement. It's also a statement not far removed from what this billboard makes.
  13. és: macrumors 6502a


    The one that got voted into office twice, or the one that just got voted as the next republican nominee?

    I do. I've not picked two random people here, I've people the person in charge and the person voted as the representative of the party for the next election. In real terms, they are the only two that matter because they have either called or will be calling the shots.

    I've just quantified it, quite easily. Am I saying, or have I said that all republicans are going to make the world less safe? of course not. However, the party has a president that has made the world a much less safe place and have a man ready for election that I (and many others) believe to be even worse.


    (I'm sorry for the above image, but that assertion is actually ridiculous)
  14. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    You picked a very small sample of history and saw it fit to make a declaration about a political party that is 150 years old and the entire world. Based on two people.

    Claiming that most of the entire world knows that Republicans makes the entire world less safe is quite a bit of ridiculous in itself. The comparison is apt; your statement shows the same woeful disregard for history and blatant partisan hackery. Of course, this whole hyperbole arms race has been spiralling towards the bottom for so long now it's kind of hard to tell what ridiculous is anymore.
  15. és: macrumors 6502a


    Let's look at what I didn't say. I didn't say 'the republican party makes the world a less safe place'. I also didn't say 'The republican party has always made the world less safe'. It seems that's how you took it but it's not what I said, suggested or meant.

    Maybe I should have clarified in the first post by saying 'the current Republicans in charge make the world less safe', but I did express, quite clearly, who I was talking about when you questioned it.

    It's not just two people. It's the current president and the nominee for president (voted for by republicans). Those, by any stretch of reality, are not just two people. They are two republicans that control or would control the world's most powerful country and its attitude towards safety. As a direct result of that, they could make the world a much less safe place.

    It's not if you open your eyes. I've not heard one person in the UK, other than a Zionist on a radio station (with his reason being that he 'will kill all of the Iranians'), say that McCain should be voted in for the sake of world peace. In fact nearly every person I talk to says exactly the opposite; he shouldn't be voted in because he is a danger to it.

    We could always go and ask the people of Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Europe, South America and North America, but I've not got the time to survey the entire global population, so I decided to look at logic instead. That's why I typed 'I think'.

    I'm judging on things I hear from all corners of the globe in newspapers, radio and on the internet. The overwhelming consensus that I get is that people feel McCain and Bush are or have been a threat to world peace.

    It's clear to anybody with a well functioning brain in their head (which I think most of the world does) that these republicans have been, and will be, a threat to international safety.

    I refer you to my above smiley.

    Comparing my claim about republicans, in the context of the current election and world safety, with that billboard is utterly absurd.
  16. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    No, it isn't. It's a similarly dismissive, derisive, and content-lacking message that this billboard propagates. The only things that are utterly absurd in this thread are the original billboard, Badandy's correlation/causation assertion, and your statement.

    I have professed no love for the billboard nor the Republican party, but I have challenged you to provide a level of discourse above broad strokes in bold colours. I am just as sick of the anti-Republican sound bytes and hyperbole as I am of the anti-Democrat sound bytes and hyperbole. All I ask of anybody is that if they're going to make a case, they do so without resorting to this kind of partisan balderdash.
  17. és: macrumors 6502a


    There is nothing dismissive about it. I've backed up what I said with facts. Yet again you're not even trying to refute them, just calling them 'balderdash'.

    I don't know why I bothered spending time writing the last few posts, explaining and countering your ridiculous, unfounded claims because all you do is quote one line and say 'balderdash'. Hardly a debate, which I won a long time ago, just an over eager poster that doesn't want to look at what I actually said and prefers to look at what he thinks I said.

    I've provided reasons, not yet refuted by you. I can provide many more facts, backed up with credible sources, if that's what you want. I guess those facts will just be 'balderdash', too.

    My suspicion is that you know it's true and the mistake you've made is to assume that when I said the word 'Republicans' you thought I meant 'Republican Party' and it's history. You know that I didn't say that and you've known from the second post exactly to whom I was referring to.

    Except this billboard asks you not to vote Democrat with an image of 9/11 behind it. Insinuating the Democratic party are some way responsible for it or are unable to defend against it without realising it was a republican in office when it happened. A republican that had intelligence to suggest the threat of an attack.

    Now, unlike the billboard, I've provided evidence for what I've said. Evidence you're yet to refute and I've offered to provide evidence in much more depth as to why these republicans are making the world a less safe place. However, I think you know full well that there is huge amounts of evidence to back it up and you know this because you're not an idiot.

    I've backed it up and you can't refute it with anything other than calling it' balderdash'. I've never said about the republican party, just republicans and then the men in charge that are clearly making the world a less safe place.

    Oh for goodness sake, go back and read my reasons for it. You're not even refuting them, just calling them partisan balderdash.

    You're looking rather petty now because you've got the wrong end of the stick and gone off the deep end about it. It's time to lift the level of debate off the floor. Either refute what I'm saying, so I can provide more evidence or bow out.
  18. MacHipster macrumors 6502

    Sep 11, 2007
    As opposed to whom?

    I must agree with Iscariot, your statement is broad and silly.
  19. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    és, you can't provide evidence for what you've said. That is exactly the point. You can provide evidence for a version of what you've said, after you've added some additional qualifiers and tweaked a definition or two. You are missing the irony of throwing out a two sentence unclear and unsubstantiated partisan claim in response to a single sentence unclear and unsubstantiated partisan claim. The Rupublican Song is practically a monocled villain throwing a damsel on the tracks and twirling it's mustachio, and you have responded in kind.
  20. és: macrumors 6502a


    Actually, it's not. It's very specific. 'Republicans' doesn't mean the party, it's ethos or it's historical view.

    Oh, silly. Thanks for the detailed rebuttal. You've really added to the debate.
  21. és: macrumors 6502a


    So, the same thing but worded differently and ignoring most of the post. Well done.

    Let me break down what I've said.

    Part 1.

    "I think".

    This means my opinion is about to follow.

    Part 2

    "most of the people around the world know"

    This means that it's my opinion that more people in the world know the facts than don't know the facts (and I feel the need to say 'not including children' etc). Whether they actually do know it or not is beside the point and doesn't change the evidence.

    I'm basing this on Newspapers (both online and physical copies at home and internationally), Radio shows (both at home and internationally) and internet discussion. The vast majority that I've heard and spoken to do know the details.

    Part 3 .

    "that the Republicans"

    This seems to be the part you are having trouble with. In the very next post I clarified who I meant by 'Republicans', so by now you should know that I'm not obscurely refusing to the history of the party, or even the party itself (otherwise the correct word to use would have been 'Republican party') but referring to President George W. Bush and Republican nominee Senator John McCain.

    These are 'republicans' and the vast majority of the republicans voted for Senator John McCain (and I believe George W. Bush in his primary). So every single one of those that voted for them can be included.

    Part 4.

    "make the world less safe."

    Surely this isn't the part you have a problem with. This isn't my opinion, this is fact. The world is a far less safe place to be, especially if you're an Arab.

    So, I've given you plenty of chance to refute it but you can't come up with anything.

    Now, that's just 'silly'.
  22. Iscariot macrumors 68030


    Aug 16, 2007
    Meehan started his opinion with "I believe" on CNN, it does't make him any less wrong, and his after-the-fact reasoning doesn't make the original statement any less off-the-mark.

    This isn't the part I have a problem with. You keep building this complex straw men arguments as if I'm some kind of Republican apologist. I'm not "ignoring" them és, they are irrelevant. If you meant George W. Bush and John McCain, you should have stated that. I have not misunderstood the term "Republican" (capital R), you meant a very specific definition which you failed to supply, or apparently misunderstood. Your original statement was wrong, and your clarifications demonstrate that you know this. I am satisfied that you know the difference, and as such ask you to be more specific in the future (maybe to help those of us who haven't got a brain in our head). My point is and always shall remain "don't make blanket statements", and if you wish, you can attach "it makes you as bad as [them]" to it.

    You may also wish to note that Republican with a capital R, as per it's definition typically refers to the Republican party of the United States. [Source: Merriam Webster] It does not refer solely to it's leadership, every member of the Republican party is a Republican.

    No, you haven't és. You've given me plenty of chances to refute a different statement, which ironically, I tend to agree with. The distinction is important, because it is the difference between an election based on issues, which the Democrats can win, and an election based on rhetoric, anger and jingoism, in which no one will win. I am not disputing whether you know the issues, I am suggesting that if you have such a judo grip on them, you use reason instead of dismissive blanket statements, because it benefits us all and it raises the level of discourse.


    Which one of these two statements is convincing discourse, and which one sounds like it could have come hot-off-the-press at The Republican Song?
  23. és: macrumors 6502a


    Well, that's one way of twisting it. The billboard didn't say anything about that though, did it. If you're going to do this, don't twist things because I'll catch you every time.

    I got to this part before I laughed so hard that snot came out of my nose. It's entirely relevant.

    What I will admit to is that I shouldn't have left any room for incorrect interpretation. That was a mistake, I did clarify way before this debate kicked off and that clarification was in no way an admission of being wrong in the first instance.

    Look, if you're going to put things in quotation marks, it's very important that you quote them correctly. I said "Republicans". That means people, not a party.

    It wasn't wrong, it was right. You "misunderstood", then asked for clarification, which I gave straight away within 5 minutes of your post. It was clear from then on, despite you thinking something else was meant (and that's your error), but you still carried on as if something else was meant or implied.

    I haven't. In the context of this post, the current election and current political climate it was clear.

    You're missing a vital point here, aren't you. I didn't say Republican, I said "Republicans". Again, it's very important you get this right before you patronise me, because it'll bite you in your arse.

    From your dictionary of choice:

    I think the appropriate phrase is "Hoist with your own petard".
  24. atszyman macrumors 68020


    Sep 16, 2003
    The Dallas 'burbs
    And how many terrorist attacks were there on American soil during previous administrations?

    This is a completely BS argument. We have no idea how hard they have been trying to attack us in the continental U.S. before of since 9/11.

    According to Richard Clarke Clinton had nearly daily meetings with the heads of intelligence to find out what they were doing to combat terrorism and that Bush stopped these meetings while pursuing a more comprehensive plan.


    Does that mean that we wouldn't have seen 9/11 had we had a democratic president? No one can know that but to sit here and claim that 9/11 was Clinton's fault or that the fact that we have not had an attack since September 2001 as evidence of this administrations success would be like blaming the USS Cole on George H.W. Bush and citing the next 8 years of no Al-Quida attacks as a success of the Clinton administration.

    The fault for September 11, lies in many places and rests on the shoulders of many people. The best we can do is try to figure out if the current policies have made the world more or less safe since September 2001. It's my opinion that we have not done a good job of making it more safe and I do not feel that we are on the right path in order to ensure a safe and prosperous future for our country. Some will disagree with that but I don't think turning Iraq into a recruiting poster for new terrorists and alienating most of our allies after the outpouring of support after September 11 have been the right moves and am ready to get someone in office who looks like they will be able to mend our relationships with other countries.

    As for the Billboard it's completely despicable to use 9/11 as a political tool, would it be defendable if the Democrats started putting up billboards with flag draped coffins to illustrate the policies that led to more than 4000 American soldiers losing their lives in an ill conceived and badly planned war?

    National tragedies should never be used for political gain and these billboards would really make me think about twice about supporting a party that used such actions. I realize that it's just a local faction that is doing this but the national party should stomp it out ASAP.
  25. skunk macrumors G4


    Jun 29, 2002
    Republic of Ukistan
    Um, excuse me, but I must point out that our own dear leader was just as culpable on these two points, and it would be a far stretch to describe him as a Republican. Furthermore, both Bush and Blair were comfortably reelected.

Share This Page