Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on March 04, 2004, 11:21:59 AM
-
From CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/04/politics/main603941.shtml)
(CBS/AP) President Bush's use of images from the Sept. 11 terror attacks in campaign commercials has drawn criticism from the families of some victims, who say the ads are in poor taste.
“It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people,” Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin towers, told the New York Daily News for its Thursday editions. “It is unconscionable.”
“It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place,” said firefighter Tommy Fee. “The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics.”
“I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty,” said Tom Roger, whose daughter perished on the plane that crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center. “But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat.”
(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/03/04/image603947x.jpg)
“With all due respect, I just completely disagree,"Karen Hughes, a Bush campaign adviser.
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtle and compassionate. Sounds like Bush to me.
-
Naturally they draw critics, most of the victims families are from New York, and that is a predominently democratic state.
I said in another thread, if Kerry gets voted in, move out of the big cities.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I said in another thread, if Kerry gets voted in, move out of the big cities.
Funny at first, but not when you think about it a bit... :( :mad: national security candidste.. tsktsk
-
And just when I though politics could not get any sleazier...Along comes this...What next?..The Statue of Liberty has it's breast exposed by Sen Kerry?
-
Lowlife...
And that from the one who supposedly brought morals back in the whitehouse.
How much lower will he go when the realization he's going to lose sinks in, how much more people will be hurt in the process?
(http://www.bloodforoil.org/incredible-quotes/im-the-dictator-tn.jpg)
-
Tell me exactly whats so offensive of a president, who nursed this nation through one its deepest, darkest hours, to be pictured in front of an event that occured? I don't get it. He *was* the standing president when the tragedy occured. For God's sake he broke a record for an approval rating 3 months after the event that no president had done before him! I think folks are using this as a tool to lash out at Bush, nothing new. Carry on...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
...who nursed this nation through one its deepest, darkest hours, ...to be pictured in front of an event that occured? I don't get it.
Nursed, blundered... it's a fine line, oh wait, it isn't.
-
Originally posted by Thud
Nursed, blundered... it's a fine line, oh wait, it isn't.
Afraid to answer the question? No worries.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you. What exactly did Bush blunder on 9/11 or the few months that followed?
-
He nursed Haliburton Inc through this..That's for sure.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
He nursed Haliburton through this..That's for sure.
I can understand why one would try to change the subject on such a difficult question.
-
Search "Al Capone's Vault" Aces High BBS if you want a simple answer.
"It's for the children"..Right?:rolleyes:
-
Rest assured if the Dems were in the White House and this happened, and it was they who showed/referenced 9/11 imagery to show how things have changed from then on, it would be appluaded. Just imagine a Micheal Moore~ish spin and it would be hailed for Academy Awards
The degree of hate people have for Bush, or anything republican, has no bounds.
It just angst these people that Bush responded thoroughly and quickly to the events of 9/11...and yes, he deserves credit for that. That's what being a leader is all about.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Afraid to answer the question? No worries.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you. What exactly did Bush blunder on 9/11 or the few months that followed?
He allowed the overt dicrimination of certain foreigners even up to blatant rounding up of individuals based on ethnicity. He had a big part in passing laws that moved the US dangerouly close to a police state and he attacked a country for all the wrong reasons. He lied to the American public about the war and more importantly to the servicemen and women.
Talk about blundering...
-
Thats pretty sick.
New low for the republicans, but then again they are holding their convention in New York and moved the date back so it is closer to sept 11th.
Thanks Carl Rove for lowering the bar even more.
-
True Bush has done well since 9/11 US credibilty in the world is probably lower now then it's ever been.
...-Gixer
-
Why?
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Thats pretty sick.
-
"He allowed the overt dicrimination of certain foreigners even up to blatant rounding up of individuals based on ethnicity. He had a big part in passing law that moved the US dangerouly close to a police state and he attacked a country for all the wrong reasons."
Had Gore been the Prez, he would have apologised to all muslims of the world for all of the things our evil empire has done in the past, present, and future. Saddam would still be in power terrorizing his own people, and plotting another run at one of his neighbors, further destabelizing the region.
Of course, France would still like us and that makes up for the rest.
"He lied to the American public about the war and more importantly to the servicemen and women."
:rolleyes:
-
"He allowed the overt dicrimination of certain foreigners even up to blatant rounding up of individuals based on ethnicity."
Give me an example, and the Al queda and Taliban members in Cuba don't count (unless you'd rather us place them in the care of your family)
He had a big part in passing laws that moved the US dangerouly close to a police state.."
Oh yes! I can just feel the FBI screening my every email and bugging every telephone call I make! Oh, and those scanner thingies at the airport? I thought that was an excellent thing to incorporate into the airports...we were much too lax before ;)
" and he attacked a country for all the wrong reasons. "
I do believe bush had a 92% approval rating for invading Afganistan and hunting down the Al Queda network. Please provide some facts that could possible show that I may be wrong here.
"He lied to the American public about the war and more importantly to the servicemen and women. "
What the hello does that have to do with the subject of 9/11? That was 1.5 years after the fact. Stay on subject please.
Talk about blundering posts!
So what exactly did Bush do wrong on 9/11 and the following 3 months after that crisis? This is what we're talking about. If you want to cover his career, well there are about 300 other topics you can do a search on and read. We've covered that area already. Today I'm asking a question. Whats offensive about it? Please be specific.
For cry out loud, we have guys that say "Jacksons breast didn't bother me at all! You're too anal!" but then turn around and say "Bush's picture was offensive in front of the Twin Towers!"
Oh my, the hipocrasy!
-
Rip said:
Tell me exactly whats so offensive of a president, who nursed this nation through one its deepest, darkest hours, to be pictured in front of an event that occured? I don't get it. He *was* the standing president when the tragedy occured. For God's sake he broke a record for an approval rating 3 months after the event that no president had done before him! I think folks are using this as a tool to lash out at Bush, nothing new. Carry on...
I can entirely understand why someone who is related to those who died during 9/11 can feel that the memories of their loved ones are being cheapend because they are being used for political gain.
I'm not sure why anyone else would find it particularly offensive. The whole purpose of a political campaign for the incumbent is to persuade the electorate that he did a good job on the big issues. 9/11 was one of the biggest issues during Bush's presidency, so why not mention it in the campaign? Obviously the portrayal of it has to be handled sensitively.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Kanth
Why?
There is something about expanding ones political career by showing images of a place of mass slaughter that dosnt sit right with me. There are better ways of showing proven leadership then scream 'look what i did after 9/11' every 5min.
If al gore was president the same course of actions would have been takeing. Minus the patriot act. The decisions bush made were pretty much no brainer.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Rip said:
I can entirely understand why someone who is related to those who died during 9/11 can feel that the memories of their loved ones are being cheapend because they are being used for political gain.
I'm not sure why anyone else would find it particularly offensive. The whole purpose of a political campaign for the incumbent is to persuade the electorate that he did a good job on the big issues. 9/11 was one of the biggest issues during Bush's presidency, so why not mention it in the campaign? Obviously the portrayal of it has to be handled sensitively.
Ravs
This is a controversy that is old as politics itself. At what point do we say that its offensive because the same old political ads continue to use current events to their advantage? Would you like examples of other presidents taking the same advantage of current events?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
There is something about expanding ones political career by showing images of a place of mass slaughter that dosnt sit right with me. There are better ways of showing proven leadership then scream 'look what i did after 9/11' every 5min.
If al gore was president the same course of actions would have been takeing. Minus the patriot act. The decisions bush made were pretty much no brainer.
Yep, this is such a new tactic in politics, isn't it?
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/1999-07/low_blows.html
;)
-
It isnt a new tactic, but its something i was hoping would be left out of this election.
Dole and clinton, and clinton and bush the 1st never went this low.
Now the question is will kerry have something equally as negitive.
My personal belief is no, but you never know.
-
Rip, it's about exploitation of a tragedy. You would be screaming bloody murder if Kerry put out an ad with similar pics saying "It happened on Bush's watch."
I think it shows more about Bush's heavyhanded, authoritarian style of leadership. "Vote for me or your all going to live in fear!"
-
Funny, many of you dudes have no trouble whatsover with Kerry mentioning every third sentence he was in Viet Nam... no matter what it is he's talking about. Talk about wearing something out, or cheap political tactics.
As for the topic header, you're simply wrong. The ads have been very well received. At least the pundits think so thus far.
-
I think Bush has every right to point to his leadership in one of the darkest hours in our nation's history. Even if I'd known someone who'd perished in that attack I wouldn't be offended by the ads.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
It isnt a new tactic, but its something i was hoping would be left out of this election.
Dole and clinton, and clinton and bush the 1st never went this low.
Now the question is will kerry have something equally as negitive.
My personal belief is no, but you never know.
Yep, never have politics gone so low in the waterline :rolleyes:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/finalists.shtml
-
The adds only devide the country even more. It pisses people off that think using the deaths of 3k people for political gain is wrong, and it makes people that are afraid of their own shadow let alone a dark skinned fellow applaud.
You think kerry talks about vietnam in everyother sentence, because you listen to nothing but soundbites from conservitive sources. If you actually listen to one of his speaches i doubt he mentions it even once. The only time ive heard him use it is when he is actually given a speach to vets.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Rip, it's about exploitation of a tragedy. You would be screaming bloody murder if Kerry put out an ad with similar pics saying "It happened on Bush's watch."
I think it shows more about Bush's heavyhanded, authoritarian style of leadership. "Vote for me or your all going to live in fear!"
Bush is putting himself in front of tower and saying "it happened on MY watch, and I was there for the American people". Its how you're interpreting it for political reasons, rpm. Be honest with yourself.
-
Stoop so low? Hmm, maybe the DNC for using move-on.org to shadow fund the election against election law? Let's see how that one pans out, eh? ;)
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
The adds(sic) only devide the country even more.
Okay, so write a complaint letter to the move.org about the outrageuous ads that flooded this bandwidth a few months ago. Be consistent!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yep, never have politics gone so low in the waterline :rolleyes:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/finalists.shtml
You do understand that moveon.org is not conected to the kerry campaign whatsover. I know its hard for you to comprehend somethings sometimes rip, but i just want to make sure you knew.
-
LOL Kieren, you beat me to it. :)
-
Rip,
If Bill Clinton had used his stirring memorial for the 18 Rangers killed in Somalia as a campaign ad, wouldn’t you have been at least slightly offended?..
You know who Ron Sussman is? In 1969 he was a 21 year old sailor serving on board a swift boat in Viet Nam. They were on patrol when suddenly a mine exploded underneath the boat. Sussman was thrown overboard and with his heavy gear, quickly sank to the bottom of the river. After removing his equipment he could see two other swift boats pass overhead at full speed. Upon reaching the surface, he could see all three boats had rounded a bend in the river and that he was drawing fire from both sides of the river.
Sussman figured that was it.. only a few seconds he’d be killed. A minute or so passed when suddenly a lone swift boat rounded the corner and roared up to his position. A bloody hand reached out and grabbed Sussman’s collar and yanked him onboard.
That bloody hand belonged to John Kerry.
Compare this to 911. New York is taking fire from both sides of the river.. Did Lt. Bush come back to rescue his comrade? No.. He skidadaled to Nebraska, He ran like a nancy boy to Montaina. It took Karren Hughes to read a prepared statement on television. Rudy Guillinti and former president Clinton had to calm down the people of New York and the country. Bush of course was AWOL as usual.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
As for the topic header, you're simply wrong. The ads have been very well received. At least the pundits think so thus far.
Which pundits? The re-election committee? CNN, CBS, MSNBC, Newsday, AP are all carrying the story.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
You do understand that moveon.org is not conected to the kerry campaign whatsover. I know its hard for you to comprehend somethings sometimes rip, but i just want to make sure you knew.
moveon.org contributes money to DNC, DNC contributes to Kerry campaign this fall. Yeah, the money never really touched Kerrys hands so that makes it okay. Great logic. :rofl
-
Lol! Rip,
I was agreeing with you.
Re-read my post again.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Rip,
If Bill Clinton had used his stirring memorial for the 18 Rangers killed in Somalia as a campaign ad, wouldn’t you have been at least slightly offended?..
That was a military failure, are you kidding? Bad example, no president would have done that.
Next.
-
This was the single biggest even in this man's career, not to mention recent history. But you think he should ignore that and go with something else?
Al Gore is a non-issue unless he runs again.
Originally posted by Frogm4n
There is something about expanding ones political career by showing images of a place of mass slaughter that dosnt sit right with me. There are better ways of showing proven leadership then scream 'look what i did after 9/11' every 5min.
If al gore was president the same course of actions would have been takeing. Minus the patriot act. The decisions bush made were pretty much no brainer.
-
Well then with that kind of logic i can start using the far christian right as sources for bush's politics.
jeez rip you really have no clue. moveon.orgs commercials are not what kerry represents just like jerry fallwell isnt what bush represents.
-
Ravells, rgr that. The last sentence in my reply was a pre-emptive call to those who followed up by claiming it hasn't been done before, though they still acted like its not a typical tactic by politicians.:lol
-
10Bears,
I am sure that Kerry's campaign machine wont be letting the electorate forget that he was a decorated Vietnam vet.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Kanth
This was the single biggest even in this man's career, not to mention recent history. But you think he should ignore that and go with something else?
Al Gore is a non-issue unless he runs again.
There are alot more tastefull options.
Plus if 9/11 is all he is running on that is pretty sad. Its as bad as dean running on 'get bush out'.
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
No.. He skidadaled to Nebraska, He ran like a nancy boy to Montaina.
Do you know ANYTHING about NEACP?
Doesn't sound like it.
Extending your logic, if say XamBinawoponia attacked the US, whatever serving President was in office should suit up in combat gear and head for the front lines.
-
The president of France was in NY before bush.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Well then with that kind of logic i can start using the far christian right as sources for bush's politics.
jeez rip you really have no clue. moveon.orgs commercials are not what kerry represents just like jerry fallwell isnt what bush represents.
MoveOn.org, an advocacy group, has sought to energize opposition to the president by sponsoring a contest in which Americans were urged to produce an anti-Bush advertisement to air the week of the State of the Union address. Web site visitors were invited to vote for their favorite ad from a pre-selected group that MoveOn.org deems appropriate for TV. MoveOn.org informed potential ad makers that "we're not going to post anything that would be inappropriate for television." Two of the ads posted on the group's Web site compared Adolf Hitler to George W. Bush. One ad morphed an image of Hitler into President Bush and says that, "1945's war crimes" are "2003's foreign policy."
Whats worse, using 6 million dead jews to make your point, or standing front of a tragic event saying "I was here for you"
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
There are alot more tastefull options.
Plus if 9/11 is all he is running on that is pretty sad. Its as bad as dean running on 'get bush out'.
Are you serious? In the months that followed 9/11, even the liberals were saying how well he handled it.
How quickly we forget. I think how he responds to an attack is just as relevant to this election as Kerry's voting record.
-
like i said rip. Moveon.org does its own thing. John kerry isnt telling them to make those adds, just like bush isnt telling jerry fallwell and pat robertson to state that we deserved 9/11. If you cant distinguish different political oganizeations from one or another then hey i understand your pain.
-
Even in their response to the criticism you can see the compassion for the victims in their eyes.
(http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2004/03/04/image603947x.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
like i said rip. Moveon.org does its own thing. John kerry isnt telling them to make those adds, just like bush isnt telling jerry fallwell and pat robertson to state that we deserved 9/11. If you cant distinguish different political oganizeations from one or another then hey i understand your pain.
Thats because Kerry hasn't began yet. Just wait. You've set yourself up for the definition of bad taste. I'll reboot this topic sometime this summer or fall .
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Are you serious? In the months that followed 9/11, even the liberals were saying how well he handled it.
How quickly we forget. I think how he responds to an attack is just as relevant to this election as Kerry's voting record.
Im not forgeting, but im also not forgeting how he screwed up our standing in the rest of the world shortly after 9/11 as soon as the blind patriotism wound down.
Bush didnt do anymore then Gulianni, Chirac or hell, Hillary Clintion. He got up in front of a TV read a speach written for him and then the US with the help of france,germany etc kicked the taliban out of afghanistan. All these extra little polictys have not made us any safer. They are just there for our own comfort.
If the FBI or CIA had actually followed protocal on 9/11 then it would never have happened.
There has not been another al queada attack on the US because they blew their load on 9/11.
-
Let me ask you this:
Was there any untruth in the ad of Bush standing in front of the towers?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
There has not been another al queada attack on the US because they blew their load on 9/11.
Huh? Can you use some of your finer educational skills and speak english here?
-
9/11 was a calculated event that took several years of planning to enact. To this day we have not discovered another such calculated plot against the US. Sure they have bombed many other places that are less secure across the globe, just as they had before 9/11.
When i say 'they blew their load on 9/11' i mean that they had no other plans to strike against the US in the near future. They are not very foward thinking people, and i believe they had no idea they would even be able to pull off 9/11. The more you look at the facts it amazes me that they accomplished it.
FBI and CIA had plenty of warnings, but ignored them because they didnt think they could pull it off with the security measures in place. And if the security measures in place were actually enforced they they wouldnt have.
-
If it provokes this type of reaction from a Kerry supporter then it must be a good ad.
Did you know JF Kerry was in Vietnam !
-
Don't be foolish Rip. Is moveon the Domcratic party? No. Is the Republican party the Republican party? Yes.
-
yawn ....just more boosh bashing by the neo-libs, there will be much more, it's 8 months to the election.
is hoolywood going to make a mini series about kerry's 48 days in nam? i like that part about the "bloody hand" reaching out to save his "band of brothers", alex baldwin can play kerry and barb strisand can be the nurse that heals his wounds.
-
YGBSM!
Wait till the TV ads really get rolling.
Anyone who thinks Moveon.org is totally divorced, separate and completely isolated from the DNC will no doubt believe that whatever "attack dog" organization the RNC uses will also be totally divorced, separate and completely isolated.
Yah, right.
Moveon is the old "plausible deniability" scam. The Republicans will have one too. They probably already do.
Both parties use "mouthpieces" to slam the other guy. That way they can claim they are taking the moral high ground in the campaign and not "going dirty".
They can go on TV claiming that THEY didn't say all that nasty stuff about Candidate X. It was those other guys who said:
Yes, we're award that NastyGuys.org said Candidate X routinely has sex with underage, infected donkeys while his children watch. Our Candidate, Candidate Y (who is happily married with 3 perfect children) totally deplores such terrible attack ads. He is certain that Candidate X isn't HAVING SEX WITH INFECTED DONKEYS and hopes this charge of Candidate X HAVING SEX WITH INFECTED DONKEYS won't be repeated. Thank you.
While they simply DEPLORE the nasty guys saying that, they can understand the frustration. But of course, WE'RE taking the "high road".
Jeebuz...... tell me you guys are a bit more sophisticated and aren't really falling for that.
-
George W. Bush - Strong leader for troubled times.
One is reminded of an article a few years ago about the fireman that set his own fires so he could be the hero of his community. In a way, Bush created the atmospherics for these troubled times he’s trying to rescue us from.
Terrorism?.. Bah!.. that was Clinton’s thing.. we’re more interested in missile defense.
Wouldn’t a more appropriate campaign slogan be “George W. Bush - Mistakes were made” Haha-- “George W. Bush” - Intelligence Failures are us” lol.. “George W. Bush for president - Because it’s not my fault”..
Outsourcing Boing beta tester jobs is GOOD for America!... Ha-ha-ha.
-
Originally posted by Toad
YGBSM!
Wait till the TV ads really get rolling.
Anyone who thinks Moveon.org is totally divorced, separate and completely isolated from the DNC will no doubt believe that whatever "attack dog" organization the RNC uses will also be totally divorced, separate and completely isolated.
The difference is that this add is not done by the RNCs attack dog, but by the bush campiagn directly. Now if it was done by a RNC attack dog, then i wouldnt care.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
When i say 'they blew their load on 9/11' i mean that they had no other plans to strike against the US in the near future. They are not very foward thinking people, and i believe they had no idea they would even be able to pull off 9/11.
You did read the reports of the other planned attacks against the US that were on the hard drives that were confiscated in the caves, didn't you? Or are you simply ignoring that bit of history for your own politcal point?
Originally posted by Frogm4n
FBI and CIA had plenty of warnings, but ignored them because they didnt think they could pull it off with the security measures in place. And if the security measures in place were actually enforced they they wouldnt have.
and had the administration put those securities effects into place PRE-9/11, how do you think the public would have reacted?
-
Originally posted by Toad
While they simply DEPLORE the nasty guys saying that, they can understand the frustration. But of course, WE'RE taking the "high road".
Jeebuz...... tell me you guys are a bit more sophisticated and aren't really falling for that.
I think by the posting this topic, it answered that question for you ;)
-
Not to mention that the security measures put in place AFTER 9/11 are already being watered down as "too expensive".
America will not pay for, let alone accept, the types of security it measures that true security requires.
EL AL is the prime example. It has pretty effective security. However, their measures are deemed too costly and too time consuming for American carriers to emulate.
So, who gets the blame the next time?
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
The difference is that this add is not done by the RNCs attack dog, but by the bush campiagn directly.
Bush campaign is privately funded.
Moveon.org...privately funded.
Come again?
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Now if it was done by a RNC attack dog, then i wouldnt care.
you lying sack of....:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
and had the administration put those securities effects into place PRE-9/11, how do you think the public would have reacted?
It was called waco.
Oh and rip i have no need to lie. Im a democrat and i believe alot of moveon.org does is downright idiodic. But im not going to associate them with kerry. Just as i dont associate bush with the RNC's attack dogs.
-
The obvious answer is this current ad is certainly not an attack ad.
Comparing this 9/11 ad to one in which Hitler morphs into Bush shows the difference.
Moveon, the plausible deniability privately funded mouthpiece, floated a trial balloon for an attack ad.
Bush's privately funded campaign put out an ad attempting to make their candidate look good. SOME people don't like it. Others undoubtedly will like it a lot.
You may find the ad in "bad taste" perhaps but it doesn't even menton Kerry. It's in no way an attack ad.
Hitler morphing into Bush? Any questions, class?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Compare this to 911. New York is taking fire from both sides of the river.. Did Lt. Bush come back to rescue his comrade? No.. He skidadaled to Nebraska, He ran like a nancy boy to Montaina. It took Karren Hughes to read a prepared statement on television. Rudy Guillinti and former president Clinton had to calm down the people of New York and the country. Bush of course was AWOL as usual.
I remember that!
Everyone was trying to figure out where Bush was....
The chicken watermelon was hiding like a coward!
And then his excuse was ... "well, we didn't want the enemy to know where the president was."
It's easy for him to say "Bring it on." After the US Military has already kicked the watermelon out of the enemy... but at the height of the battle - 9/11 when his life migh be in danger... where was Bush? Did he stand up and say "Bring it on?"
Nope... he was silent as a mouse playing possem.... afraid to peek his head out.... he ran away like a dog with his tail between his legs and leaving a trail of pee - That's Bush!
Now he degraces New Yorkers, Americans, and especially the victims of 9/11 by using their imagines and the circumtances of their death for his political gain?
Bush is a **** bag!
-
Originally posted by Toad
The obvious answer is this current ad is certainly not an attack ad.
Comparing this 9/11 ad to one in which Hitler morphs into Bush shows the difference.
Moveon, the plausible deniability privately funded mouthpiece, floated a trial balloon for an attack ad.
Bush's privately funded campaign put out an ad attempting to make their candidate look good. SOME people don't like it. Others undoubtedly will like it a lot.
You may find the ad in "bad taste" perhaps but it doesn't even menton Kerry. It's in no way an attack ad.
Hitler morphing into Bush? Any questions, class?
Yes the moveon.org add is quite distastefull. At least it was not funded by kerrys campaign.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Moveon, the plausible deniability privately funded mouthpiece,
Can you actually prove a connection or are you guessing?
-
I think this place will be unbearable during the election.
(for the record, 10bears and nakhumi are obviously insane and/or the same person...you heard it first here)
-
Fer pity's sake, Nexus. You at least should know what NEACP is and the general outline of the mission.
Thrawn, what proof do you want? That it is privately funded or that the DNC folks don't privately sit back and smile when moveon puts out the slime and then make some public comment like "we simply deplore "going negative".
Go ahead; pretend that either the DNC or the RNC are high-minded, honorable political organizations who's real interest is simply in what's best for the nation.
Yah, right.
There P O L I T I C I A N S.
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
I remember that!
Everyone was trying to figure out where Bush was....
The chicken watermelon was hiding like a coward!
And then his excuse was ... "well, we didn't want the enemy to know where the president was."
It's easy for him to say "Bring it on." After the US Military has already kicked the watermelon out of the enemy... but at the height of the battle - 9/11 when his life migh be in danger... where was Bush? Did he stand up and say "Bring it on?"
Nope... he was silent as a mouse playing possem.... afraid to peek his head out.... he ran away like a dog with his tail between his legs and leaving a trail of pee - That's Bush!
Now he degraces New Yorkers, Americans, and especially the victims of 9/11 by using their imagines and the circumtances of their death for his political gain?
Bush is a **** bag!
gee, i almost think from that post that you don't like boosh and i know that i can't change your mind, so i'm not even going to try.
i'm not going to tell you on 9/11 nobody knew if more attacks were coming
i'm not going to tell you that boosh wanted to go to washington.
i'm not going to tell you that the secret service insisted boosh fly to a air force base where they could protect him , (thats the job of the secret service)
i'm not going to tell you that your phobia of boosh borders on mental illness.
i'm not going to say any of those things, never, not me.
-
it's the job of the secret service to protect the president. It's the job of the president to demonstrate resolve in periods of adversity. And it's his job to tell the secret service where to stick it when their job interferes with his.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You may find the ad in "bad taste" perhaps but it doesn't even menton Kerry. It's in no way an attack ad.
Hitler morphing into Bush? Any questions, class?
Hitler morphing into Bush... you got a point there that is dirty advertising..
Which party started this kind of crap?
Jogging the memory at all?
Here's a hint... Bush Senrior and his friend Karl rove..
Remember that turn style of a blackmen leaving prison... and the face of Willy Horton slowly replaced by the face of Michael Dukak...
Who was behind that? Moveorg... or the RNC?
Kettle calling the pot black for sure.
-
Nah.
What happened? 3 families related to the Kennedy's called in and said they were outraged?
CNN ran the add on the tube - nothing wrong with it at all. Its a reminder of what the country has been through and if you cant take that... well... then perhaps you might have issues of your very own.
Love the topic of the thread though, mountain, meet molehill.
-
It isn't a question of who started it or the pot and the kettle.
If you do a bit of research, you'll find "attack ads" go wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y back in American Presidential poltics. Certainly back to the days before television, even.
Remember Johnson's "daisy girl" ad against Goldwater? Peter Jennings, over video of the "daisy" ad: "With political ads like this one, that suggested Goldwater would get the nation into war with the Soviets, President Johnson buried him...."
Go here:
Daisy Girl (http://www.ammi.org/cgi-bin/video/years.cgi?1964,1,300,,)
They have TV commercials from all the campaigns back to Eisenhower. Watch 'em all and you tell me who started it, ok?
-
Tasteful? It was a horrible situation. How's that going to be converted to tasteful?
As far as him dropping all other issues in order to focus solely on that one, I haven't seen any evidence of that.
Originally posted by Frogm4n
There are alot more tastefull options.
Plus if 9/11 is all he is running on that is pretty sad. Its as bad as dean running on 'get bush out'.
-
Originally posted by Toad
If you do a bit of research, you'll find "attack ads" go wa-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-y back in American Presidential poltics. Certainly back to the days before television, even.
Absolutely, no disagreement there.
My point... sorry for being so subtle about it.... the RNC, and even the DNC are not different than Moveon.org in their "political" adverts.
Well wait a minute... there is a difference. Moveon.org never aired that ad. The ads they were considering were submitted by their members and there was an automatic system for voting for them or against them and before someone could review this particular ad it had already been voted down. But still it was upon on their web site to be considered... and still the conversvatives are trying to get every mile out of it as they can -
A non-event that never happened.
However Willy Horton happened and so did the latest Bush ad.
I actually thought the ad Moveon.org wanted to show during the superbowl was rather good... you know the children working off the national debt. It was poignant because it's true. But since CBS is owned by the RNC... of course it was controversial... well aren't all potilical ads controversial?
If Bush would have shown his ad to a test group - I suspect he probably would not have used the 9/11 footage. But then his test group may be as skewed as his politics.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I think this place will be unbearable during the election.
:aok
-
Opponents to president Jefferson circulated vile vicious rumors the president was having relations with a BLACK woman.
Hey Dinger i’m putting together a ww2 mission and want to use Russian Klasakoff.. (er spellling) rockets instead of your MRLS rocket launcher?... Can I write some code in the init line or do I have to use you addon?.. Loving your artillery addon BTW, keep up the good work!
-
I suppose it escapes you that even posting the ad as a "choice" can be viewed as an attack?
I could start a "happydaze.org" website and post some really slimey ads on it asking people to choose. Suppose it gets 1 million hits a week and people view all the ads. Is that negative advertising?
The DNC owns CBS? Come now. I think a publicly traded company, Viacom, owns CBS. Just how much of Viacom does the RNC own?
Oh, wait.. you're just regurgitating the moveon.org venom towards CBS refused to air ads created by their "Bush in 30 Seconds" ad contest.
Pssssssst. Hey, it's a conspiracy. Grab the tinfoil!!!!
-
Originally posted by rpm371
:aok
Election day is easy... After the election... then the blame game starts... and the glueing shut of white house office drawers shut.... white out smeared on the computer monitors...
There is something to look forward too, no matter who loses... Ralph Nader will be blamed!
-
Its exploitative of people's fears regarding terrorism, which is fine. If Kerry were to run an ad that was exploitative of people's fears (say images of vietnam interspersed with images of Iraq along with home movies of some of the soldiers that have died in Iraq), you Bush strokers would be frothing at the mouth.
Personally, I hope the dems do it. Better yet, show the same 9/11 footage, interspersed with the Bin Laden footage released post-9/11, and ask the question, "The man responsible for the death of 3000 Americans on 9/11 is still at large. Why did we not make him our number 1 priority in the war on terror?"
Wheeee! Whoever wins, this is going to be a hell of an entertaining election, heh.
-
Did I really read that right, that some idiots think the President should have stayed in place during a coordinated strike against the political, military, and economic centers of power?
-
"you Bush strokers would be frothing at the mouth."
Are you sure that's froth?:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
with the bullcrap move-on.org is throwing out there, the dems can't say anything about commercials...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Afraid to answer the question? No worries.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you. What exactly did Bush blunder on 9/11 or the few months that followed?
One way was by ignoring the complete plan provided by members of the Clinton admin. which included:
1. Kill Bin Laden
2. Create a department of Homeland Security
3. Support the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan with troops on the ground and covert ops.
4. Don't ignore terrorism.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
One way was by ignoring the complete plan provided by members of the Clinton admin. which included:
1. Kill Bin Laden
2. Create a department of Homland Security
3. Support the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan with troops on the ground and covert ops.
4. Don't ignore terrorism.
LOL no comment:rofl
-
Originally posted by LAWCobra
LOL no comment:rofl
LOL.. no kidding
-
So, MT...... how long had they had this plan?
-
It was developed after the Cole incident October 2000. Completed in December 2000 and presented to Condie Rice and her group prior to the inauguration. Then it was completely ignored for 8 months.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
It was developed after the Cole incident October 2000. Completed in December 2000 and presented to Condie Rice and her group prior to the inauguration. Then it was completely ignored for 8 months.
That's a good anwer, can you back it up?
-
Man I did not know all these people worked at the White house:aok
-
MT,
I believe you're referring to the plan that Clinton "planned" on carrying out, but never did.
The one that took him 8 years to formulate, leaving him with insufficient time to put into operation.
The one that required far greater intelligence forces to implement that his administration was willing to fund.
The plan Clinton's groupees began to work on after the bombing of the WTC in 1993.
Am I right?
Thought I'd help clarify your argument those who might not have understood.
No need to thank me...us old farts have gotta stick together.
Regards, Shuckins
:aok
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's a good anwer, can you back it up?
Well you know he can Thawn,.. slap Hart + Rudman + Antiterrorism report into google.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
That's a good anwer, can you back it up?
Easy...
TIME MAGAZINE
Could 9/11 Have Been Prevented?
Long before the tragic events of September 11th, the White House debated taking the fight to al-Qaeda. It didn't happen and soon it was too late. The saga of a lost chance
By MICHAEL ELLIOTT
Sunday, Aug. 04, 2002
Sometimes history is made by the force of arms on battlefields, sometimes by the fall of an exhausted empire. But often when historians set about figuring why a nation took one course rather than another, they are most interested in who said what to whom at a meeting far from the public eye whose true significance may have been missed even by those who took part in it.
One such meeting took place in the White House situation room during the first week of January 2001. The session was part of a program designed by Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, who wanted the transition between the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations to run as smoothly as possible. With some bitterness, Berger remembered how little he and his colleagues had been helped by the first Bush Administration in 1992-93. Eager to avoid a repeat of that experience, he had set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley.
Berger attended only one of the briefings-the session that dealt with the threat posed to the U.S. by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. "I'm coming to this briefing," he says he told Rice, "to underscore how important I think this subject is." Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive-just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000-an attack that left 17 Americans dead-he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing (the Bush Administration) a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.
>>
For the rest, including denials and spin...
Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C333835%2C00.html)
-
gee MT you would have thought that in 8 years Clinton could have done SOMETHING along those lines. He was more interested in headlines than doing his job....
-
Hey 10bears, it's a little more complicated than that. Some WW2 editors are in contact with me. THe best route is to get the modmaker in touch with me and I can slap UA control in the .pbo file
Huh? offtopic?
-
Originally posted by 10Bears
Well you know he can Thawn
Actually no I didn't, although I wouldn't be surprised as he some dates in his statement. I've heard similar things said before, but I don't recall it ever being substantiated.
-
Originally posted by Udie
gee MT you would have thought that in 8 years Clinton could have done SOMETHING along those lines. He was more interested in headlines than doing his job....
The reason nothing was really done after the 1993 Twin Towers attack, according to Madiline not so Bright was the low body count...Un freaking believable.....but sadly true.
-
Put this in Google:
sudan osama arrest saudi clinton
You might want to add "1996" as well.
-
"It begins in the 1970's in Houston, Texas, when George W. Bush was just starting out in his family's two businesses of politics and oil. The powerful - and very rich - Bin Laden family helped fund his first venture into oil.
The cozy friendship continued for decades. After a terrorist attack at a barracks in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 Americans, the bin Laden family received a multi-billion dollar contract to re-build. And incredibly, George Bush Sr. was in a business meeting at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Washington on the morning of September 11th with one of Osama Bin Laden's brothers."
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/saudi.html
Great keywords for a search Toad
-
ouch!
-
Yeah. Make the case that the entire Bin Laden family is indistinguishable from Osama. IE, make the case they are all Al-Q terrorists.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Otherwise, consider this:
We were friendly with OSAMA when it was in our national interest.
Is that a bad thing? If so, explain why we allied with Stalin in WW2.
When it became clear we no longer shared an interest with him and that he was in fact our enemy........ should we have worked with Sudan to take him into custody? Was Bush Sr. on watch then?
Make a big deal of Bush1 supporting Bin Laden when the US and Osama had a common enemy. Then ignore that Clinton had the chance to bag him after we knew he had turned against us.
You sound so..... "fair and balanced". :p
-
15 all.
Torque to serve.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by ravells
Rip said:
Obviously the portrayal of it has to be handled sensitively.
Ravs
um we are of course talking about someone from Texas here...sensitivity might be a little problematic.
-
just as many would be complaining if 9/11 were not mentioned, as if it never happened, a bad dream, preventable if only goron was in charge :rolleyes:
-
It's a little naive to believe neither side would mention 9/11. It's a little thick to believe they haven't already been doing so before this particular set of commercials. Don't you guys think the debate is pretty well defined by now?
1. Viet Nam
2. 9/11
3. Economy/jobs
4. Health care
5. Education
and now
6. Same-sex marriage
The players are set, the match has been defined. I guess I can pretend shock, but these are going to be the issues, and have been for some time.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
just as many would be complaining if 9/11 were not mentioned, as if it never happened, a bad dream, preventable if only goron was in charge :rolleyes:
Eagler, you need to back off the prescription a tad.
-
“I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty,” said Tom Roger, whose daughter perished on the plane that crashed into the north tower....”
Less offended but still offended maybe?
A president running for re-election and using the image of Statue of Liberty could be offensive? How about in front of the Stars and Stripes?
The commercial shows maybe 2 seconds of WTC image in what I thought rather respectful manner.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Eagler, you need to back off the prescription a tad.
or get one written :)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The commercial shows maybe 2 seconds of WTC image in what I thought rather respectful manner.
Hell, even Clinton's apology was longer than that. Dont ruin his fun though, I think hes under the impression hes convincing people that its an offensive ad. Shhh.
-
Bush last regime change is doing himself.
-
So all the hundreds of partially related (family head had multiple wives) Bin Laden family are evil terrorists? You do undrestand that Osama bin laden prolly has over a dozen half siblings....
and also are you trying to suggest that Bush let 911 happend because of his business dealings with the Bin Laden compannies?
You guys are certifiable...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So all the hundreds of partially related (family head had multiple wives) Bin Laden family are evil terrorists? You do undrestand that Osama bin laden prolly has over a dozen half siblings....
and also are you trying to suggest that Bush let 911 happend because of his business dealings with the Bin Laden compannies?
You guys are certifiable...
the Bin Laden Family where sending him money....they stopped(hic) not too long ago....If you believe that.
when convenient....you can shake hands with the devil....or whom ever represents the bad side.
and yes very certifiable.....
-
Yep, this is why I stay away from poilitics...politics has eight letters...so does bull****...
-
If I were Bush I'd be splashing 9-11 all over my commercials. Lots of pictures of me with those brave firefighters... It was his political high point. He should use it to his advantage.
-
Seriously, both sides need to think about this:
A) 9/11/2001 happened.
B) It was not prevented.
C) **** load of Americans died.
D) Its idiotic to us the Twin Tower and Pentagon attacks as a promotion for something that was not prevented and that a **** load of Americans died in.
E) If you think its a worthwhile commerical, then you deserve a sign.
Game Over, I win - you lose.
-SW
-
anyone ofended by these very benign Comercials is either soo wrapped in bush hate they have NO objectivity or a total idiot.
What Denis kocksinich did using the names of the dead GIs from IRAQ wad far worse, of corse most of the same, "this is so terrible bush is scum crowd" loved it.