Kain Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Bush is using 9/11 as the basis of his re-election, but denies thats the reason for his new string of commercials Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylilin Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Its time for Bush to go, he was useful when we needed him, but its time for him to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Curry favour for his re-election? I don't think that's the response everyone's giving, are they? They are all angry at Bush now for 'insulting' their loved ones. Big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by Kylilin ..... he was useful when we needed him.... he hee hee sorry, cant help but giggle, this is the guy that said, * "100% of imports come from overseas" and * "look at the kitty" and * "we will hunt down those responsible for terrorising the people of the free world, now watch me make this drive[ie. when playing golf]..." glad he's *your* president... MTFBWYA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taos Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by Kain Bush is using 9/11 as the basis of his re-election, but denies thats the reason for his new string of commercials Wouldn't you if you were in that position? That being said, I do think we need to probably have someone else in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZBomber Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 I don't see what the big deal is..... if you don't want to watch the commerical, then don't ****ing watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark jedi 8 Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 but is Kerry a better replacement? anyway, bush needs to go, but in october we'll suddenly "find" osama and he'll get elected again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Time to smack some right wing in here... Okay first off, I must take this picture from the collection thread... ... secondly, I think he should win the elections, because IMO I don't think anyone from the primaries is qualified for it. They complain about Bush like little babies, yet I haven't heard anything from them that make me stop and think. Bush did that, before he became president. All I hear is "Bush hasn't done nothing, Bush says but doesn't do, blah blah, waa waa crap, why isn't my steak ready, blah blah, yadda yadda." I would turn to Jerry Springer to hear that. Don't focus on bad mouthing the guy your against, focus on what your going to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cheat Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 you have to give GW credit though. just compare the U.S. to the terrible state it was in back in 1991 U.S. in 1991: Bush was President War in Iraq Crappy Economy U.S. in 2004: Bush is President War in Iraq Crappy Economy wow how things have changed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted March 6, 2004 Share Posted March 6, 2004 Originally posted by Kain Republicans = Retarted Pelicans Untrue. I am a republican, and I am not a pelican. Nor am I retarded, for that matter. Well, I wouldn't say EXACTLY that i'm full republican, but I'm more of it than anything.... Anyways, even though I'm more of a republican, I still don't like Bush. I plan on voting for John Kerry or Edwards. BTW hobgoblin, did you know Bush is trying to bring back the draft? Do you know how unconstitutional that is? It's different if the enemy was in my back yard, but I'm not gonna be here if the draft comes back.... Also, just because someone is liberal, that does not mean they do not like the military. That picture has no relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uber_Saber Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 Kain and Hob and Uber, don't start a flame war... Seriously.....try to keep the debate as civil as possible.... Sorry. *Bites tongue* To be honest, this thread has mutated from its original form, which was comments upon Bush's attempts to use 9/11 as a basis for re-election. That's pretty weak, to be honest. But then, he hasn't got much to use for re-election. Still, using that for the basis of re-election... you have to wonder who made that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark jedi 8 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 wouldn't it be better to use the saddam (sp) capture for his re-election? i mean he seemed pretty determined to capture both saddam and osama after 9/11. he should state the fact that he sorta came through w/his "promise" and that should show him as a "succesful" president who keeps his word. not that i care cus politics suck. (i was hoping to have clark go up against bush, he seemed the most honest. plus he's a military man and knows how to get the job done w/out pissing around) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted March 7, 2004 Author Share Posted March 7, 2004 True, he could have used Saddam's capture as the basis of re-election campaign, but that would remind the families of those lost in the 'War on Terror', thus the same issue would be brought up. That, and his original intention was the capture Osama, but he took the silver medal in Suddam Hussein, and failed in rooting out all responsible for 9/11. All in all, Bush just picked up what 'daddy' dropped, not to mention his most noticable accomplishment is driving the economy into the dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark jedi 8 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 which is why i think osama will magically show up some time in the next 8 months, IMO. now that would be sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by TheHobGoblin They complain about Bush like little babies, [...] All I hear is [...] blah blah, waa waa crap, why isn't my steak ready, blah blah, yadda yadda." I would turn to Jerry Springer to hear that. Don't focus on bad mouthing the guy your against, focus on what your going to do. Okay. Take some of your own advice I'm going to vote. And... I'm going to point out the failures and evils of the Bush admin. [*]The economy tanked. [*]Nearly 600 American lives wasted in a war we shouldn't have been involved with. [*]Civil liberties threatened by the very legislations that claim to "protect the American way of life." [*]Jobless rate is far higher than it could be. [*]No Child Left Behind is a joke. [*]Gitmo [*]Social capital blown among the worlds nations. [*]Pollution/environmental controls ignored. [*]Corporations abandoning the American worker in favor of 3rd world labor that they can have for pennies. [*]Illegal Immigrant amnesty that is causing a sharp increase in border violations along the Mexican border. [*]Harken Energy hpocrisy [*]So-called Tax Cuts [*]National Budget misdirection in 2004 State of the Union speech [*]Deceiving the American public about the Iraqi threat and the weapons of mass deception. [*]Step & Fetch attitude toward the so-called "religious right." [*]and so on. [/list=1] Fire Bush. Vote Kerry. Here's a couple of links that discuss the issue of Bush Campaign Ads Using 9/11, followed by a selection of quotes from each link: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/v-pfriendly/story/170291p-148587c.html The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage. [...] "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable." Both ads reinforce the Ground Zero imagery with frontal shots of two firefighters. Unlike the paid actors and actresses in most of the footage, they are not ringers, but their red headgear gives them away as non-New Yorkers. The Bush campaign declined to reveal where the burly smoke-eaters actually work. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3534533.stm "It's totally disgusting," said Dawn Peterson, whose brother died in the attack on the World Trade Center. A White House spokesman defended the election ads, saying they emphasised Mr Bush's leadership at a time of terror. [...] "September 11th was a defining moment for our nation," spokesman Scott McClellan said. BBC Washington correspondent Rob Watson says President Bush is campaigning on the basic pitch that you don't change leaders during a time of war. "What I think is distasteful is that the president is trying to use 9/11 as a springboard for his re-election." "I don't have a problem with his pointing to his leadership at that time," one woman, who lost her sister, told Reuters. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4420934/ More than a dozen families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11 attacks released a letter Saturday declaring their support for President Bush and his use of images of the destroyed World Trade Center in campaign ads. The “Open Letter to America,” signed by 22 people who lost loved ones in the trade center, comes as other victims’ families asked that the ads be pulled from the airwaves. The spots also show firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher. “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,” he [bush] said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker Okay. Take some of your own advice I'm going to vote. And... I'm going to point out the failures and evils of the Bush admin. [*]Jobless rate is far higher than it could be. [/list=1] Weren't you the person who told me there was no evils in this world? Besides People who was effected by this, if Bush had done nothing. Those numbers would be five times worse. Every war can affect alot of people in bad ways yet if nothing is done, it gets worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Bush hadn't done nothing. Hadn't done nothign....aside from the gramatical incorrectness, that is equvalent to saying if Bush had done something. I really don't see how your post in any way addresses any of the points that Skinwalker brought up in his though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by ET Warrior Hadn't done nothign....aside from the gramatical incorrectness, that is equvalent to saying if Bush had done something. I really don't see how your post in any way addresses any of the points that Skinwalker brought up in his though... May I correct you IF Bush had done nothing (I fixed the suffix) Anyhow I said if as you can see, so please read the whole sentence. also I was talking about number 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 You actually aren't correcting ME so much as yourself, because I did read your entire sentence. But that is neither here nor there. The real point is that Bush took one of the strongest economies we've had in history, and turned it into one of the biggest deficits, and that cannot all be blamed on the war, neither can the 2.5 million jobs that were lost during the bush administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Um may I say WTC were destroyed by terrorist, not Bush. That is why the economy is bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Um may I say WTC were destroyed by terrorist, not Bush. That is why the economy is bad. 2.5 million jobs were not lost as a direct result of the WTC being destroyed. Especially since they were able to relocate the people who survived that ordeal and they could continue working in a different place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 yes but many buisness lost alot as a result of the WTC attack. Thus some had to be Laid off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 yes, that is true, but not 2.5 MILLION people. That's my point. Bush has completely mishandled our country, and put us in a situation where, if he's still in office 4 years from now, I'm going to be getting out of college with no job to get, and my degree will just be something nice I can hang on my wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Weren't you the person who told me there was no evils in this world? Doubtful. My position on evil has always been that it is defined by the observer and often shared by those of the same culture. Evil is, however, subjective and not necessarily a clearly definable concept from one culture to the next. Having said that, my intention is to define the evils of the Bush admin as I see it in order to share that information with others of my culture. Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Besides People who was effected by this, if Bush had done nothing. Those numbers would be five times worse. Honestly, I had to read that a couple of times to infer the meaning but if you are implying that Bush was responsible for the favorable nature of the jobless rate, which would have been worse if another had been President, perhaps you could explain the reasoning. What actions made the jobless rate so good and what inactions are you sure that another President would have failed at? Originally posted by TheHobGoblin Every war can affect alot of people in bad ways yet if nothing is done, it gets worst. Avoiding the war to begin with would have been a good start. Recovery from the attacks on NYC and accomplishment of the anti-terrorist mission should have been first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHobGoblin Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker Doubtful. My position on evil has always been that it is defined by the observer and often shared by those of the same culture. Evil is, however, subjective and not necessarily a clearly definable concept from one culture to the next. Having said that, my intention is to define the evils of the Bush admin as I see it in order to share that information with others of my culture. Honestly, I had to read that a couple of times to infer the meaning but if you are implying that Bush was responsible for the favorable nature of the jobless rate, which would have been worse if another had been President, perhaps you could explain the reasoning. What actions made the jobless rate so good and what inactions are you sure that another President would have failed at? Avoiding the war to begin with would have been a good start. Recovery from the attacks on NYC and accomplishment of the anti-terrorist mission should have been first. First I was saying if Bush had done nothing those numbers would have been worse, since he did do something those numbers were smaller. 2nd We got attacked by terrorist, we didn't attack them looking for a fight. They have been getting slaps on the rist, I think after hitting the WTC means the slap didn't do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.