Exactly. McCain's not known for his extreme pro-life views, therefore it's hard to see the humor here. Maybe if Jesse Helms or Rick Santorum were pictured, I could see where leftists would try to make that association, but it just doesn't work with McCain. Honestly, not a lot of cartoons would work with McCain because there's just not a lot to make fun of. There's a lot to differ with politically, but he's just not a funny guy...sorta like this MrFish fella.
Now that I read the cartoon again, I'm not even sure what the guy is talking aboot. Is it a pro-life argument? Is it a "attack on womens rights" cartoon? Is it a pro-war cartoon? Is it an underhanded attempt to get more women in the military?
But ever since Reagan left office, every candidate has acted as if he cares about what pro-lifers think, when actually not a one of them could care any less if they tried. McCain especially acts all pro-everything-Bush-said-he-stands-for-but-actually-doesn't-either; he's pretty awful.
Yea, well, John McCain wants to actually GIVE North Korea a complete set of nuclear weapons to aim at China and Japan so he can use it as leverage against them in trade negotiations. LOL.
Here's my proof: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm
Quotes that say that there should be a solution involving supporting both Israel and Palestine, with a military presence to keep them from each others' throats. Where, pray tell, does she say that the US should attack Israel?
As for the protection force that would go in between the two forces--which is what I assume you meant by "fight Israel"--allow me to clarify what a protection or peacekeeping force does: such forces are not intended to intervene on behalf of one party. They are meant to stand between opposing forces and enforce a moratorium on violence between the two; in theory, they will only respond with force to attacks against them, and will punish violations of the peace via international or judicial means.
So you see (or maybe not), it is not an attack force. It is a preventative measure to prevent violence and human rights violations, of which both sides in Israel-Palestine are guilty. Not just one, both.
As for your source, the idea seems to have originated with Ignatieff, not Power, and even his quote--which you might have seen if you bothered to read all the way through, or perhaps just conveniently missed--says that the purpose of such a force would be "to enforce the solution that provides security for BOTH populations." Just because Israel wouldn't be happy with such a plan does not mean the US would be attacking Israel.
So I guess you'll be mad now that I've proven you wrong with your own semi-credible, word-twisting, fear-mongering source.
Yeah, and he's a Muslim and he'll want to be sworn in on the Qu'Ran!! And he's associated with that Mafiosi gangster that supported his campaign in Chicago! And he eats babies!! Yeah!!
First, hes not a muslim. Second, his religion believes in making "Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind, " who follow the "Black Value System."
These are the facts. Not your attempt at being sarcastic to avoid the truth. Try again.
Well, McCain has won already. The story is in who will tear each other up more...Obama or Clinton. Either way, the longer this goes the worse each of them will look. McCain wins the longer this goes on.
He'll be rabid, if that's what it takes to make the Christian Right happy. He's flip-flopped on every moral stand he's ever taken that displeased them.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 01:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 03:11 pm (UTC)Now that I read the cartoon again, I'm not even sure what the guy is talking aboot. Is it a pro-life argument? Is it a "attack on womens rights" cartoon? Is it a pro-war cartoon? Is it an underhanded attempt to get more women in the military?
This guy stinks.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 06:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 04:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 02:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 03:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 07:02 pm (UTC)There you go.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 07:53 pm (UTC)Here's my proof: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 09:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-08 04:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 10:14 pm (UTC)http://community.livejournal.com/politicartoons/964903.html?thread=18751783#t18751783
This means I have won and you have lost. And anything you say from here on out will be a personal attack on me, so don't bother because I've won.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-10 08:32 pm (UTC)As for the protection force that would go in between the two forces--which is what I assume you meant by "fight Israel"--allow me to clarify what a protection or peacekeeping force does: such forces are not intended to intervene on behalf of one party. They are meant to stand between opposing forces and enforce a moratorium on violence between the two; in theory, they will only respond with force to attacks against them, and will punish violations of the peace via international or judicial means.
So you see (or maybe not), it is not an attack force. It is a preventative measure to prevent violence and human rights violations, of which both sides in Israel-Palestine are guilty. Not just one, both.
As for your source, the idea seems to have originated with Ignatieff, not Power, and even his quote--which you might have seen if you bothered to read all the way through, or perhaps just conveniently missed--says that the purpose of such a force would be "to enforce the solution that provides security for BOTH populations." Just because Israel wouldn't be happy with such a plan does not mean the US would be attacking Israel.
So I guess you'll be mad now that I've proven you wrong with your own semi-credible, word-twisting, fear-mongering source.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 03:52 pm (UTC)I don't like Obama, but I don't like Israel even more.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 07:04 pm (UTC)There is your proof. Its got quotes. Why do you hate Isreael?
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 03:53 pm (UTC)Oh wait, it's just you.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 05:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 07:04 pm (UTC)Oh wait, it's just you.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-10 08:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 07:11 pm (UTC)These are the facts. Not your attempt at being sarcastic to avoid the truth. Try again.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-08 01:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 02:42 pm (UTC)These are not democrat facts. These are not republican facts. This is the natural truth.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 10:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-08 01:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 02:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 06:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 07:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 04:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 04:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-07 11:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-08 05:07 am (UTC)