Bush 9/11 Ads
ZiGGY
Join Date: 2003-01-19 Member: 12479Members
Join Date: 2003-01-19 Member: 12479Members
in Discussions
Comments
-IRONIC STATEMENT-
-QUOTE-
-COUNTER ARGUMENT BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS LACKING IN RELEVENCE-
-FURTHER IRONY ABOUT EMOTIONAL ANALYSIS-
Yes this is a blatant manipulation of wounds which have been kept raw for the sake of fostering cheap patriotism.
But then, did anyone expect anything less from Bush?
Bush has abused this event in the past, he will abuse it again.
and to 'pre emptively strike' any pedants who want to ask If he should forget the whole thing?
probably not, but there are more degrees to this situation than remember/ forget.
Bushs emotional electioneering (in general) goes well beyond a reasonable degree of rememberance, to the point where his WHOLE image as the 'leader in troubled times' is based around this warped vision of the constantly threatened, and greatest evil terrorism, <b> THIS IS THE ONLY THING KEEPING HIM IN POWER </b>
*ahem* sorry, the man makes me kind of angry.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe if the government had more money, they could better fund agencies to help stimulate the economy, like maybe finding more jobs for people (I find it disturbing that, under the Bush administration, we have a higher unemployment rate than Hoover did.)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->. First, I'd like to see evidence of this.
First, if you have ever studied the budget you would understand a couple of things. 10% of the economy is interest on the debt, wasted money. 33 or more is entitlements like Social Security, they have to be paid even if that means going into a defecit fiscal year. That's almost half of revenue that is already spent on things that the government has no control over once in a fiscal year... nevermind, just read my economics post. And just before you start talking about how Clinton was so great you need to understand that was one of the most successful economies in our history with the added technology and silicon valley, which, I might add, wasn't a result of <i>any</i> of Washington's policies.
I'm kinda iffy about the whole ad, but I've not yet seen it, which I will do when I get back from my classes. The only thing I'm perturbed by is that supposedly Bush said he wouldn't use 9/11 in his ads, and now he is. I'm not sure if thats a valid rumor, but that's what a news site certainly said.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THIS IS THE ONLY THING KEEPING HIM IN POWER <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you planning a coup or something ? The reason he's in power right now is because he was voted in for a four year term and he's still in that four year term...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But then, did anyone expect anything less from Bush?
Bush has abused this event in the past, he will abuse it again.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, he's the president during the largest terrorist attack and you expect him to just never talk about it at all ? The largest problem here is that you guys already dislike Bush, so anything is wood on your fires. I remember that one of his ads was "Steady in times of change". Absolutely, 100%, I knew even if the world fell apart Bush would be doing what he thought was right, I didn't expect any less. I don't imagine Gore being so steadfast, but Bush was always dead on with his beliefs.
-CONJECTURE ABOUT WHAT THIS STATEMENT MEANS TO THIS PERSON-
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-IRONIC STATEMENT-<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-STATEMENT TO POINT OUT THE OBVIOUS IRONY-
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-QUOTE-<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-QUOTE-
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-COUNTER ARGUMENT BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS LACKING IN RELEVENCE-<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-COUNTER COUNTER ARGUMENT BASED ON INDEPENDENT ASSUMPTIONS LACKING IN RELEVANCE-
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-FURTHER IRONY ABOUT EMOTIONAL ANALYSIS-<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-COUNTER EVIDENCE TO CONJURE AGAINST THE EMOTIONAL ANALYSIS-
Yes, I've heard this too-- I <i>believe</i> I actually read it in a credible source-- I thought he had said that he wouldn't exploit 9/11 in his campaign-- but until I can find it again I'm going to take my memory with a grain of salt.
Then again, they might make a semantic issue out of this one. Guess it all depends on your definition of 'exploit'.
I think part of the the problem lies in his avoidance of the 9/11 commission-- if this was indeed his 'defining moment', and something he needs to remind voters of during his campaign, then why is he, after much cajoling, deigning to 'visit' (his word, not mine) with only <i>specific</i> members of that committee for <i>one</i> hour?
From the various sources that I've read, this is definitely a significant part of the issue. I've also seen people attempt to write it off as blind partisanship on behalf of the familes, which is by far the most comical attempt to reduce criticism to simple, mindless 'Bush hating' thus far.
....
Sadly people will vote Bush just because of the first of the oil wars. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
But why is he speaking up? Because he's a Bush hater for no good reason?
No, it's because, amidst a flurry of gladhanding photo ops, Bush rejected an appropriations bill which earmarked $340 million for equipment, training, and communications gear (poor, out-dated communications equipment was blamed for some of the deaths, since some firemen in the buildings simply <i>didn't</i> receive the message to evacuate) for 18,000 fire departments.
As they said then, '"Don't lionize our fallen brothers in one breath, and then stab us in the back by eliminating funding for our members to fight terrorism and stay safe."
So you can see why firefighters might be a tad upset at imagery of their sacrifice being used to back Bush's campaign.
Well, considering the Bible is a religous document, and should have little influence on history, and no influence on science, not to mention politics, he shouldn't let that affect his decisions too much.
He needs to govern based on the needs of the people, not by what he thinks is right and what a 1500 odd year old tome says
If he wasnt doing what he thought was right, whats the point of a presidency? Why dont we just have like...everyone in the country run things? that would get things done alright. yuuuup.
Well with everyother bill, there are always extraneous crap added onto bills. Is there anyway to see what the bill looked like when it was rejected?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fire fighter <b>union</b> lodged the complaint, not the fire fighters themselves. The union supports John Kerry, not the fire fighters themselves. Let me assure you that not everything a union says agrees with the workers who are under that union.
Seriously there is 3 seconds of 9/11 it certantly isn't exploiting it, just mentioning it because it was an important moment.
Seriously there is 3 seconds of 9/11 it certantly isn't exploiting it, just mentioning it because it was an important moment. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I did. I too think it's rather mundane, especially in the context in which it was presented.
Isn't the union supposed to represent its members? While I understand that union dynamics are pretty complicated and often contradictory to their intended purpose, it's gross oversimplification to say that the union supports Kerry, but the fire fighters do not. Rather, to remove Kerry from the equation, as their support for him may simply be a byproduct-- that the Union was critical of Bush, but its members were not.
That said, in this case Bush was on the receiving end of pork barrel politics which have brought down many a politician before him. He complained of bloat in the bill, and promised to support a stripped down version-- this was his defense.
However, the fire fighting equipment was <b>not</b> one of the items he mentioned as necessary. AIDS prevention, and aid for Israel and the Palestinians were earmaked as the priorities. That's what drew the ire of the union, and, in this case, it seems that <i>just maybe</i> they had the best interests of their membership at heart.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because he's a republican, little to nothing he does can ever be good enough in the eyes of a democrat/liberal. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>edit:</b> It's not even worth it. Obviously you feel the need to simply trivialize the other side, and so be it.
Not entirely on topic, but:
The state of politics-- on both sides-- of this nation is completely ridiculous right now. Personally, I'm trying my hardest to maintain my view that both sides want the best for this country, and it's philosophical differences that divide us. I <b>don't</b> hate Bush, I <b>do</b> disagree with his policies.
Molly Ivins put it well:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Over many years of covering politics, I have known and liked a lot of politicians with whom I never agreed about a single thing. Bob Dole and Alan Simpson come to mind as two of my favorite Republicans, and I could list Texas conservatives by the dozens.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Did you know that it is quite possible not to hate someone and at the same time notice their policies are disastrous for people in this country? Quite a thought, isn't it? Grown-ups can actually do that — can think a policy is disastrous without hating the person behind it. Lyndon Johnson comes to mind: a great president who was disastrously wrong about Vietnam. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://web.naplesnews.com/03/10/perspective/e38250a.htm' target='_blank'>Full link here.</a>
<b>Edit:</b> too lazy to open another topic right now.
Anyhow, overall, I think in the context of the ads, 9/11 isn't shown offensively per se, but as I said before, I think that his avoidance of the commision does make it a bit disrespectful.
So, all in all, I think that the fact that he uses the pictures that support his position best is a minor fact. Of cause he does, that's the way to stay in power. Wether or not that's morally right or fair to the victims doesn't really matter.
Isn't this supposed to be about some political ads?
I must be in the wrong spot.
I must say I agree with Nem on this issue, the Bush way of thinking just seems too shallow. To be honest, I don't really believe the Bush government has thought much about the decision of going to war. They had one idea that made them decide on the war, be that the oil or the WMDs, and then they just did the old-school american thing and pursued that dedication no matter what.
And really, seen from an European perspective, I believe Bush isn't doing much good. So far, he's managed to split the west in two. Even if going into Iraq was the best thing for Iraq, it was a disaster for western relations, because Bush has managed to **** off a lot of Europeans and even a not so small amount of Americans.
Oh give me a break man. Would you bash Roosevelt if you found out about his Buttons for re-election that said "I remember Pearl Harbor"
Of course, the liberal media loves to make attacks on any Republican president doing it :-\ I'm not a huge Bush fan, but find something better to bash him about.
You want something to Bash? Check out how Kerry got his Purple Hearts so quickly and the fact that if he did get them legitly, he broke regulation in doing so. For instance, he claimed he got out of a Gun boat and persued on sure, BIG NO NO, it would put you between the Gunboats gunner and the targets on land, plus you would call in another group and etc etc etc.
I doub the Emperor of Japan gained more respect from his people by showing the events transpiring at Hiroshima and Nagasaki over and over.
I am biased towards Bush, however. Mostly because:
1. He went to war using unverified intelligence (which was later proven to be false, and yet no one seems to care) to get rid of a leader that the United States put into power.
I also have this inkling that it had something to do with "rectifying" Daddy's shortcomings.
2. Okay, we're going in the right direction, starting to get rid of the deficit, and what does Dubbya do? Cut taxes! Yay, lets drive the country <i>further</i> into debt!
3. There are lots of better replacements for him. For example, a head of lettuce.
[Bad Pun] The lettuce would, of course, run as a Green Party canidate. [/Bad Pun] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T
Man, please, check up on your facts first. Bush Sr wanted to get rid of Saddam the first time, but was stopped by Congress. Its not "his shortcoming"
Don't mean to blast you, but ugh man, get of the bandwagon.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fire fighter <b>union</b> lodged the complaint, not the fire fighters themselves. The union supports John Kerry, not the fire fighters themselves. Let me assure you that not everything a union says agrees with the workers who are under that union. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Amen to that.
Kind of a weird discussion really. I mean, as far as I can see, a presidency candate has to be able to afford a ridiculously expensive election campaign. In order to do so in mordern society, you either have to be really lucky (not likely at all), or have some friends who can help you pay. But if your friends help you pay, they will expect you to pay back. If you base your election campaign on the fact that you want to pay back millions of dollars, you're not going in. So, really, I am afraid I do not believe it is possible to become a presidency candidate without cheating someone somewhere. So, no matter what president you look to, there will be something to bash.
If only people would take the time to research them and vote by their ideology and their plans for the presidency. But if they did, we'd have another set of candidates I think.
You want something to Bash? Check out how Kerry got his Purple Hearts so quickly and the fact that if he did get them legitly, he broke regulation in doing so. For instance, he claimed he got out of a Gun boat and persued on sure, BIG NO NO, it would put you between the Gunboats gunner and the targets on land, plus you would call in another group and etc etc etc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So help me, if I see one more knee-jerk reference to the 'liberal media' heads are going to roll.
Aren't conservatives the ones who are supposed to laugh everything off as 'conspiracy theory', instead of making them? To throw out a crude stat and then paraphrase Eric Alterman, many more papers supported Bush than Gore in the last election, and the press was particularly brutal to the latter. If that's a 'liberal media', you can have it.
At any rate, <i>your</i> post, <i>your</i> research. Why don't you provide some links for us so we can see what a truly bad man Kerry is. Really. Please. Everything I've seen so far reeks of spin, but maybe I'm just being duped by that darn liberal media.
And to get back on topic, this is partially why I find the ads distasteful (courtesy of Josh Marshall):
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I will continue to speak about the effects of 9/11 on our country and my presidency ... How this administration handled that day as well as the war on terror is worthy of discussion and I look forward to discussing that with the American people.
George W. Bush
March 6th, 2004
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks won't accept strict conditions set by the White House for the panel's interviews with President George W. Bush and Vice President **** Cheney, commission members said Tuesday.
The White House wants the interviews to be limited to one hour, with the questioners limited to the panel's chairman and vice chairman.
Detroit Free Press
March 3rd, 2004
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As well, the press isn't allowed to show caskets coming off of planes from Iraq, yet Bush displays the shrouded remains of a 9/11 victim in his ad? Let's hope they don't find out whose body it is . . .
<b>Xzlien:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course, the liberal media loves to make attacks on any Republican president doing it :-\ I'm not a huge Bush fan, but find something better to bash him about.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As much as I hate to play rulemonger in a thread I'm partaking in, refer to <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43638' target='_blank'>Discussion Forum Rule #2</a>, and keep those blanket remarks at bay - I think BMs reaction showed quite clearly why.
On the note of the political orientation of American media, seeing it all from this side of the Atlantic, I'd like to point out that the only political color they'd be allowed to don over here would be <i>brown</i>.
Anyway, BM is right, we're tackling a tangent so satruated that it threatens to kill the original thread. I'll split the posts mainly conntected to Iraq into a seperate topic.
[edit]<a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=65220&st=0#entry968431' target='_blank'>Done</a>. I apologize to anyone I put in the 'wrong' thread.[/edit]
I'm afraid it's all spin. There's too many damn money in that game to run for president with a portfolio as simple as improving the country. At least that's my impression. What I would like is a country of voters who spend an hour each day focusing on the matter at hand.
I personally do not care if Bush didn't show up for military service, or wether or not Kerry's purple heart was justified. What matters to me is what they will do to the world during their four years. Yet it seems most Americans are more concerned about some little medal than a country spanning most of a continent.