SkinWalker Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by TheHobGoblin First I was saying if Bush had done nothing those numbers would have been worse, since he did do something those numbers were smaller. I'm asking: what do you think Bush did and how much larger would those number have been? Our country has the biggest net job loss since Hoover. Surely that cannot be blamed entirely on 9/11. Originally posted by TheHobGoblin 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. Getting attacked by terrorists has little to do with getting involved in a war against Iraq. The only correlation is the fact that public sentiment blinded most to the fact that the Bush admin was taking advantage of the opportunity. In addition, I don't think bombing Afghanistan back to the stone-age could be consider a "slap on the wrist." We effectively removed the Taliban leadership that was patron to Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in direct and swift response to the WTC attacks. That was where our focus should have remained: on the so-called War on Terror. Instead, we side-tracked billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops to Iraq. And yet, the Bush campaign feels it has the right to use the 9/11 imagery in its ads? As if the victims of 9/11 are the first concern of Bush? He's demonstrated that they are but a convenient vehicle to advance the neo-conservative agenda. 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 First I was saying if Bush had done nothing those numbers would have been worse, since he did do something those numbers were smaller. Any form or reference or evidence to back that statement up? Or you just throwing out guesses? Because, as I mentioned, one attack taking out two buildings in New York, even counting all the companies that were forced to downsize as a result (mostly airlines i'd guess) still wouldn't account for the 2.5 million jobs that have been lost since Bush took office. Furthermore, it's been, what, 2.5 years since 9/11? And we still haven't seen ANY turnaround. The economy still sucks and there still aren't any jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Druid_Allanon 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 Yeah, well... but he didn't find the alleged WMD, did he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Gee...another Bush bashing thread... Personally, I thought the comercials were very well done, and I find it hard to fault President Bush for using 9/11 in a campaign add...after all, it was the defining moment of his presidency, as well as a defining moment for our nation. Besides that, how can democrats blame President Bush for using 9/11 as a campaign issue because it was a tragedy when they have no problem with Kerry using Vietnam, another tragedy, in his campaign? After all, many more Americans died in Vietnam than did in 9/11...and Kerry may have been a hero during the war, but his behavior toward Vietnam vets after the war was anything but heroic. But that's my opinion...I'm sure all you libs out there disagree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted March 7, 2004 Author Share Posted March 7, 2004 Yes rccar, it is sad that Kerry would use Vietnam, but atleast HE went. Where are Bush's war records? Oh yea, locked away in daddy's private library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Personally, I thought the comercials were very well done, and I find it hard to fault President Bush for using 9/11 in a campaign add...after all, it was the defining moment of his presidency, as well as a defining moment for our nation. It would have been if Bush had actually done everything he could to make sure that those responsible for september 11 had gotten what they deserved. Instead he attacked them for a little bit, but used the momentum to push for a war in Iraq that was TOTALLY unrelated, and in the end simply USED 9/11 to further his goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Now that it arises again, I feel this pic is again neccesary (sorry Skin, if you think it unnessesary and hafta delete it) Picking up right where Daddy Bush left off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by Druid Allanon Yeah, well... but he didn't find the alleged WMD, did he? Ok ok, just because we don't find the WMD's doesn't mean they're not there. Just remember that. Kerry talks about how he's sooo patriotic, he got shot, and went home. Yet, other veterans during that time, when they got shot, they wouldn't accept their Purple Heart, the still stayed to fight alongside their buddies. Although I know this doesn't have anything to do with the election. OK, Bush helped us get through 9/11, did he not? He did, so doesn't he have the right to say how he helped us through? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit OK, Bush helped us get through 9/11, did he not? He did, so doesn't he have the right to say how he helped us through? Just a thought. What is important is that the families of the 9/11 victims find the ads controversial and unappropriate. These people do not want to be reminded of the incident any more than it already has been. They have every right to protest anything that causes them sorrow, pain, etc. If the FCC has the right to limit the content upon the radio and TV, the public should equally also have that right. As for the economy, it is still a jobless one. American businesses added a meager 21,000 jobs in February, the government said, stunning analysts and shattering short-lived hopes for an end to the three-year jobs drought. The unemployment rate was stuck at 5.6 percent. Even though the economy may be recovering, middle and lower class citizens are still out of work and without income, suggesting that the benefits of this so-called "recovery" are going to the upper class and corporations. How are tax cuts going to help when the people don't even have the money to pay their taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by wassup What is important is that the families of the 9/11 victims find the ads controversial and unappropriate. These people do not want to be reminded of the incident any more than it already has been. They have every right to protest anything that causes them sorrow, pain, etc. Yes, I do agree that the victims' families have the right to protest the commercials, but President Bush is not trying to hurt them. He is merely saying that he helped us. Also, not all of the 9/11 victims' families are in distaste for Bush's ads. Some of them are ok with them. Also, the President is not in direct control of the economy, though his plans for it do influence it. Right? I would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Also, the President is not in direct control of the economy, though his plans for it do influence it. Right? I would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President. When the economy is down it is the presidents duty to enact legislation to stimulate and improve it. Bush has accomplished absolutely nothing in the way of improving our country's current state. Furthermore, I tire of the 9/11 card played every time our economy is brought up. The events of September 11th DID in fact have a detrimental effect on our economy, but since that time NOTHING has been done to turn things around. After 2.5 years, there should be SOME improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wassup Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Yes, I do agree that the victims' families have the right to protest the commercials, but President Bush is not trying to hurt them. He is merely saying that he helped us. Also, not all of the 9/11 victims' families are in distaste for Bush's ads. Some of them are ok with them. Who knows what he is trying to say. The key issue here is that the families are not comfortable with the ads on TV so they have the right (through legal action if neccessary) to take them off the air. There is so far not anything like this against Kerry and Vietnam, so those ads can still be run. Put ratings on the Bush ads or only air them during a certain time, but something needs to be done to comply with the famalies' requests. The Bush adminstration is ignoring the voice and consent of the people they are supposed to serve. Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Also, the President is not in direct control of the economy, though his plans for it do influence it. Right? I would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President. It is correct the economy is not entirely controlled by the executive. The Federal Reserve and the Stock Market have significant roles in running the economy, and they may not neccessarily be influenced by the agenda of the Bush adminstration. However, The President does appoint a Cabinet, or group of advisors, to oversee many major aspects of the country. The Cabinet members are influenced by the agenda of Bush and the Republican party, otherwise they will be replaced. As ET Warrior said, the state of the economy suggests that they have (a) done little to improve it or (b) are only just beginning to seriously plan what to do with the weak economy and jobless rate since the past few years have gone by. Seems like while the shepherd has gone out to hunt the wolf, he has forgotten to tend the sheep. (ok that was a really bad analogy...) Also rccar, you may feel this "Bush-bashing" is getting repetitive, but sooner or later we will have to face the real facts (and failures) of this adminstration, so I suggest embracing this change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Yes, I do agree that the victims' families have the right to protest the commercials, but President Bush is not trying to hurt them. No, of course he isn't. But he's coming off as condescending and insensitive as ever, not to mention out-of-touch with his voters. Personally, I hope he keeps running ads with 9/11 imagery. Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit Also, not all of the 9/11 victims' families are in distaste for Bush's ads. Some of them are ok with them. Apparently 22 of them are okay with it. See one of the links I posted above. Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit I would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President. I'm amazed at the spurious correlation that is consistently made by those to lazy to do a little critical thinking. 3,000 or so lives were lost in 9/11. Undeniably the single largest act of homicide ever committed in the United States. But consider that "more than 41,000 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes each year (CDC, 2004)." One could argue that the 3k lives of 9/11 weren't the only ones affected and that relatives and other businesses were temporarily displaced as well. But that argument doesn't hold up since the 41k lives lost each year to motor vehicle accidents also had families and many were business owners. One could argue that many businesses were directly affected as they couldn't do business after the loss of the WTC's physical plant. But in a capitalistic society businesses rebound from such catastrophes. I would hazard to guess that real estate in the area of the WTC is still expensive and that business is thriving. I would hazard to guess that the businesses that existed within the WTC have largely relocated and are in operation. Did 9/11 and the destruction of the WTC affect the economy? Without a doubt. But it didn't affect the economy in the way that Conservative Republican Apologetists would have us believe. Our economy can withstand the loss of even 3k lives and the businesses associated with a couple of large buildings. What our economy has trouble dealing with, however, is a trillion dollar deficit and unfair tax advantages for the wealthy while the under-privilaged get enough tax incentive to buy a week's worth of groceries and see a movie. A trillion dollar deficit + billions of dollars fighting the wrong enemy is not a worthwhile reason to tank the economy. Fire Bush. Elect Kerry so we can get it straight. CDC (2/17/04). Community-Based Interventions to Reduce Motor Vehicle-Related Injuries: Evidence of Effectiveness from Systematic Reviews. Centers for Disease Control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted March 8, 2004 Author Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker What our economy has trouble dealing with, however, is a trillion dollar deficit and unfair tax advantages for the wealthy while the under-privilaged get enough tax incentive to buy a week's worth of groceries and see a movie. A trillion dollar deficit + billions of dollars fighting the wrong enemy is not a worthwhile reason to tank the economy. Hell, I can barely afford the groceries, much less the damn movie. Last time I went job hunting (during the Clinton admin when I was in High School[i've been working since I graduated last June]), I got several call backs(actually, almost all were callbacks). Wanna know how many I had last year? One. At the moment, I'm stuck at a minimum wage seasonal job(oh, and the season ends this month, giddy), and I bet finding another one come end time will be a sad site indeed, and I blame Bush's ineffectiveness in recovering the economy after 9/11. I was a Bush supporter after 9/11, but after the war went on for about, oh 3 days, I realized what his agenda was ALL about; and for that agenda, see my previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted March 8, 2004 Share Posted March 8, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 Personally, I thought the comercials were very well done, and I find it hard to fault President Bush for using 9/11 in a campaign add...after all, it was the defining moment of his presidency, as well as a defining moment for our nation. I still don't see that bush did anything after 9/11 that any other US president wouldn't have done (except, didn't he not turn up for about a week to visit the site?) Look at other disasters around the world and the reaction of the heads of state involved... what else could he have done? Giving someone credit for doing something that is defined in the job description seems pretty generous. If by some complete fluke (or voting irregularity) a guy in a chicken costume had been elected just before 9/11 he would still have done exactly the same thing.... up to the iraq war that is. I don't see other presidents showing pictures of themselves at earthquake sites as the bodies are pulled out in their campaigns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by rccar328 I find it hard to fault President Bush for using 9/11 in a campaign add...after all, it was the defining moment of his presidency, as well as a defining moment for our nation. 'Defining moment for our nation' [/contemptous sneer]. Talk about a narrow-minded nation then. 9/11 was in-sig-ni-fi-cant in every definition of the term, save for the fact that dubya's been using it as an excuse to wage war on a sovereign country (without the approval of the UN), to cut back civil rights (which the republican party has been against since god-alone-knows-when), further over-inflate the military budget, and to obscure his mishandling of the (world) economy. Besides that, how can democrats blame President Bush for using 9/11 as a campaign issue because it was a tragedy when they have no problem with Kerry using Vietnam, another tragedy, in his campaign? J. F. Kerry is not relevant to the topic of this thread. However, there is a difference between mentioning a disaster in a speech, and showing one in technicolour. Kerry may have been a hero during the war, but his behavior toward Vietnam vets after the war was anything but heroic. Exactly how is it 'not heroic' to stand up to the political establishment and proclaim that you are no longer in favor of a war that you have been fighting in? How is it not heroic to admit that you have made a mistake? A mistake that made people die? Ok ok, just because we don't find the WMD's doesn't mean they're not there. Just remember that. "...and in the face of mountains of evidence, we shall pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts..." - Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "For I have tasted the fruit" Kerry talks about how he's sooo patriotic, he got shot, and went home. Kerry still is not the issue here. OK, Bush helped us get through 9/11, did he not? He did, so doesn't he have the right to say how he helped us through? Just a thought. If he can prove that he 'helped you through', and didn't just **** up. Also, the President is not in direct control of the economy, though his plans for it do influence it. Right? I would be interested to know how the economy would be after 9/11 if Gore or Kerry was President. Better. Giving tax cuts to the richest is money out of the window. Going into expensive, pointless wars is money out of the window. The Democrats were opposed to both. That said, I agree with ET (for once) that 9/11 was insignificant in this respect. You just have to look at the numbers, to see that no single attack, nor any two attacks for that matter, could cause such massive problems. Giving someone credit for doing something that is defined in the job description seems pretty generous. hehehe BTW, Skin: WTF does GOP stand for? You've used it several times. GOvernment in Power? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 10, 2004 Share Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar BTW, Skin: WTF does GOP stand for? You've used it several times. GOvernment in Power? The Grand Old Party. Sorry... I forget that not everyone gets some of the little nuances of American government. The GOP is the Republican Party in general. Within this party are moderates that lean more toward the left and hard-liners that lean more toward the right. The latter are usually referred to as "conservatives" and used like this: "conservative republican." Though, in the last 10 years or so, a new group of hardliners have emerged that are known as the neo-conservatives and they clearly have an agenda that is bad for the country. Much of their agenda is secretive, yet one can infer it from their policies and actions by watching the members of this club in action (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Pearle, et al). There are those that believe that George W. Bush is simply their little "bitch-boy" and their means of maintaining power. I'm not sure I agree with that, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 I have never heard of the "neo-conservatives." Is this just what you call the new, strong left people, or is this a true title? Or who are they anyway??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit I have never heard of the "neo-conservatives." Is this just what you call the new, strong left people, or is this a true title? Or who are they anyway??? I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_(United_States) Neoconservatism is a conservative movement with origins in the Old Left that has been very influential in formulating pro-war foreign policy stances by the United States. The term "neoconservative" remains somewhat controversial, with many of those whom the label is applied to rejecting it. It has become an increasingly popular term in recent years, to the point where many say it is becoming overused and lacking any coherient defintion. But click within that page on The return of neoconservatism under George W. Bush for the contemporary definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 thanks for the info! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_One Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I think whether the use of 9/11 images is "right or wrong" depends entirely on your moral standpoint. On a purely practical note, Bush is going to use any platform he can to get re-elected, whether that be turning 9/11 to his own political advantage, attacking Kerry for being a liberal (why is this such a dirty word in American politics?), mobilising the Christian Right or even engineering a convenient capture of Osama in time for the election. Campaigns are nasty things, and candidates are (obviously) intent on winning, and rarely worry about how they go about doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Originally posted by SkinWalker The Grand Old Party. Thx for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.