http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/
Particularly, "Safer, Stronger".
Try to put aside partisanship, if you could. (haha)
Particularly, "Safer, Stronger".
Try to put aside partisanship, if you could. (haha)
Are these ads distasteful?
- Thread starter RussSchultz
- Start date
Let me put my partisan hat aside. These ads were by far the best ive seen made. Not attack ads, but carrying a simple and straight message. I hope the bush campaign keeps putting these types of ads on the air.RussSchultz said:
later,
epic
i hope this doesnt derail your thread RS. but here is the link to john kerry's ads (right side of page).
later,
epic
edit: forgot link:http://www.johnkerry.com/videos/
later,
epic
edit: forgot link:http://www.johnkerry.com/videos/
its not distate, but because im lazy. It takes quite alot for me to actually capitalize someones name.K.I.L.E.R said:Epicstruggle, when you type out John Kerry's name you type it with distaste. Any reason why?
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:It takes quite alot for me to actually capitalize someones name.
Gosh, what r u, tetraplegic? (<--- now THAT was distasteful)
Joe DeFuria
Legend
epicstruggle said:
I agree. (I said as much in the other thread that touched on these videos.) All it does is outline / highlight the challenges that Bush faces, and what has, is, and will be driving his policies.
There's no attacks on anyone, and it's a positive message.
Hell, even Time Agrees.
And here's Democrat who lost her sister, speaking out.
And little bit about "the people" who mere making a stink on this.
Of course, they have a right to their politics, but the bashing of the Bush ad is clearly motiviated by that.
Joe DeFuria said:
I'd like to silently add another point: he's using NYC pictures - where he couldn't be seen so long after 9/11... where he couldn't be spotted on memorial services...
Let me get this straight he's not using these pics to point out what he DID - instead he's using these pics to connect himself to your feelings generated by these pics.
That's a big difference, people.
This guy simply doesn't like us, New Yorkers - I think he never did.
He's now acting like a WASP-like frikkin' Bible-raved psycho ("I don't read newspapers" but "I read only my Bible everyday - all the answers are there" - if it's true it's even worst than he's just a liar), who is disgusted by all the 'big' and 'deviant' cities like NYC, LA, SF - and all the places where NOT your Bible cover page and your marriage license defines who you are and how far you can go.
Do you watch Real Time (B. Maher)? If so, you'll definitely know my feelings about Bush and his ads.
PS: Don't get me wrong, I don't like Kerry either.
He'd be a no-go for me, sure - but if I'd have to choose between them, I'd definitely go with Kerry, despite all my disapprovals.It's impossible to watch politicals ads in a non-partisan way. Now that that's aside, they're all good ads.
As an educated independent voter I could easily skewer all three when it comes to the details espoused as "leadership" and "consistency."
As a New Yorker, I have a problem with the image of the firefighters with the flag draped coffin. The horror of 9/11 is remembered by all and doesn't need a coffin to drive home the point. The first two ads tie Bush with 9/11 in a respectful manner imo without showing any coffins. That's the way to do it imo.
As an american who sees Bush and Kerry as the only two viable candidates, I have to go with a Howard Dean quote from a few days ago: "I'm just deeply disappointed that once again we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils." Which one is which, however, is something that hasn't been decided imo. Though I'm sick of voting like that anyway after I did it just once in 2000.
As an educated independent voter I could easily skewer all three when it comes to the details espoused as "leadership" and "consistency."
As a New Yorker, I have a problem with the image of the firefighters with the flag draped coffin. The horror of 9/11 is remembered by all and doesn't need a coffin to drive home the point. The first two ads tie Bush with 9/11 in a respectful manner imo without showing any coffins. That's the way to do it imo.
As an american who sees Bush and Kerry as the only two viable candidates, I have to go with a Howard Dean quote from a few days ago: "I'm just deeply disappointed that once again we may have to settle for the lesser of two evils." Which one is which, however, is something that hasn't been decided imo. Though I'm sick of voting like that anyway after I did it just once in 2000.
T2k said:
Couldn't agree more. People are trying to portray this as "positive" contrasted to Kerry's "negative" campaign, but does anyone expect any incumbent to say instead: "Wee, look at that deficit skyrocket? Maybe if we hop a ride we'll get to Mars. Hey, look at the mud on my face, I told the world Saddam was an imminent threat to peace and stability thanks to those pesky stealth WMD. Hey, let's not talk about the environment, mmmkay? I'm the war president, because I'm conducting class warfare as we speak. The working middle class of this country? Fuck 'em."
Please take the above as a little tongue-in-cheek humor before having a right ventrical heart spasm. Seriously, what does Bush have to run on? The economy? Not quite yet, maybe later this year if it can continue making small improvements. The environment? Puh-lease. The war on terror? Hard to quantify if we're really *safer* now. Federal spending and the national debt? Best left alone. So what's left? Ahh, image. I'm the principled, Christian war president, bad things have happened recently and could happen again. But with me and God, and the course we've set, we'll stay safe. You vote for that other fella'. . .aww, shucks, that's like votin' for that sneaky bin Laden rascal.
Hilarious stuff when Maher reads something from a paper each week. Bush deserves such grilling for being dumb enough to make such a statement (though his wife contradicted it very recently by saying it's part of their daily routine to read the paper in bed together, so who knows).
PS: Don't get me wrong, I don't like Kerry either.
You're like me: screwed. Once again, another presidential election that's merely a choosing of the lesser evil.
Edit: LOL I wrote the lesser of evils without having heard Dean's recent comment or having read Natoma's post. RARWWWW!!
John Reynolds said:
You're such a political tool. What doesn't Bush have to run on?
The Economy is in full recovery due to his fiscal policy, any economist or person with any clue will agree. Jobs are a lagging indicator and with productivity gains as high as they are, it's not surprising. Unless your a bleedingheart liberal (read: Economics flunky) who truely believes that NAFTA and free-trade is bad, you have nothing to critisize Bush for. Job mobility is a fact and it won't change, that's what happens when you hold a skill-less/low-skill job; but as any economist will tell you the solution is in (re)education and selection of skillsets which aren't as mobile (eg. Notice how the US is still the most advanced nation in research and that won't change?), not killing freetrade and impeeding economic progress. That's Macro 101. He inherited a recession, his policies have pulled us threw.
The War on Terror is a massive success, anyone would be forced to agree. There has yet to be a single Al-Qaeda attack on the United States since 9-11, hardly attributable to Al-Qaeda "finding a conscience." Over 75% (IIRC) of their leadership hierarchy is captured or dead with the remainder on the run and afraid of a Special Operator busting down the door and killing them at any moment. There is nolonger a free base of operation for the virtual-state and every advantage it had which made it powerful during it's ascent in the '90s is gone. And all signs would show that Iraq is drawing in the localized pockets of Al-Qaeda which have fragmented and are left after the Afghanistan campaign and the financial operations - just as a client state is supposed to.
The Bush Administration's precedent of unilateral action when in the interests of self-defense and unilateral disarmerment of our own Nuclear stockpiles while focusing on intelligence increases (which Kerry voted against after the first Al-Qaeda attacks on America) and surgical/conventional warfare has caused nations such as Iran and Libya to drop their underground WMD programs and/or open up to international pressures. The North Koreans have been taken to task and the fallicious policies of appeasement which allowed them to conduct an underground nuclear program under Clinton's terms has been done away with in favor of an extended Bush Doctrine.
The Enviroment isn't an issue; concerning [human induced] Global Warming it's an unknown in the sciences and the Bush Administration has done well by backing out of Kyoto and not slowing our economic progress in an eco-freak manner while endorsing advanced research under the aegis of a unified and scientifically endorced platform. The NNI, Hydrogen and Fusion research as well as continued support of the Biotechnologies is promising.
We finally have accountability inn the school system under an initiative voted on by the Democratic presidential contender and even the guy whose killed more people with his car than I have with my gun, Ted Kennedy. It's about time the government introduces a free-market-esque facet to the educational system while allowing us to see where our students are preforming. But, what was that line of yours John - "Teaching for tests, not learning" or something to that effect? I forgot about the crib-sheet design and probabilistic scantron selection provisions....
The Debt isn't a problem in the long-run, especially concidering historical relative levels (which makes sence because as the GDP grows...); spending is a problem, although that's been reigned in somewhat.
We finally have a Medicare Provision, for better or worse, that even AARP endorsed. As in, we got something the Democrats have been talking about since the early 1990s and never did.
Ohh, and give him another 4 years and I'm sure they'll solve the SS solvency problem via privatization. Hell, even Bill Maher endorces it - which tells you something.
Or, you can vote for Kerry because Bush is the damn antichrist, is against abortion and won't let Natoma marry his boyfriend. Ohh, and he has a bunch of policies which are utterly amazing - but we don't know the details yet because he's still changing over from his last stance. Which, I'm quite convinced you shall do John.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
T2k said:
You mean, you forgot about his blow-horn speech on the pile of rubble? Or do you mean while planes weren't still falling out of the sky, why was he not there?
Oh...wait...you mean if he was "spotted" at memorial services, he wouldn't be accused of using the opportunity for PR? You can't have it both ways.
Really? You think he's trying to get you to feel something? This is suppossed to be a newsflash?
Of course he wants you to connect it with some feelings. This doesn't mean it's wrong.
You know what's really distasteful? The handful of "victims families andf firends" that are using their own family and friends death to launch political attack on Bush. Talk about disrespectful.
If all New Yorkers are like you...why would he?
Yeah...right after I watch Michael Moore..
Joe DeFuria said:
You know, while George Bush was cowering in the corner on Sept 11th....
...John Kerry* was running at Snipers in the Jungles of Vietnam.**
- *The same John Kerry that was the sole sponsor of a 1995 bill to CUT the CIA budget by $5Billion, clearly after the Al-Qaeda strikes against the WTC.
In 1997, he stated that the intelligence apparatus was too big - most disturbingly, less than a year after the US Intelligence connected and charged Razi Yousef and Kalid Mohammad for their Al-Qaeda plot to hijack 12 airliners over the Pacific and blow them up in syncronization. It was also only a year after the Al-Qaeda attacks on the Cobar Towers in 1996.
But! He did state after 9/11, "Why wasn't our intelligence better?"
- **That's ~3 months before he testified with the Anti-War Crowd before Congress, notably spearheaded by Jane Fonda, that his fellow soldiers where purposely committing warcrimes such as killing innocent civilians, raping the women, and pillaging the lands. Undoubtedly one of the most piercing and damaging testimonies that lent fuel to the hippy-lead antiwar crowd which spit on our soldiers returning home.
Vince said:
Yeah, damn Kerry for not having a father as Congressman who could help him dodge the draft. Let's not detract away from the service of those who were sent overseas (a bit too Ann Coulter-ish for my tastes).
This entire rant suggests that larger bureaucracy and more money equate to better gathering and interpretation of intelligence. I wouldn't be so quick to make that assumption. But, yes, that's a portion of his track record I hope Kerry gets grilled over sometime during his campaign.
Guilt by association there, Vince. Personally, yeah, Fonda should've been slapped in jail years ago as a traitor and she should still be rotting there, but not all war protesters spat upon returning soldiers. Personally I think by serving Kerry earned the right the criticize the war; that said, Kerry's testimony was clearly over-the-top and inaccurate in how it portrayed the common US soldier serving in 'Nam. Incidences of rape, murder, and pillaging did, in fact, occur, but not with the commonality that Kerry was trying to paint during that testimony. Charged, emotional times.
And speaking of charged, emotional statements, I highly doubt all war protestors were spitting upon our returning soldiers. You could've written that sentence as "some of whom" rather than in the way you chose to.
And if you're going to insist on insulting others, and who apparently feels the need to try 'n talk down to everyone of differing opinions, learning how to spell simple words and use contractions (your is not the same as you are contracted to you're) correctly might be a good idea. OK?
Vince said:
You ask too much of the voting masses. The economy was in full recovery at this point in Bush I's presidency, but he was voted out. Why? No one felt it.
Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs.......
Vince said:
Al-Qaeda's worldwide activities have increased as of late. See Iraq, Afghanistan (where the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are on a comeback since we've relied on warlord mercenaries to do our dirty work rather than sending in enough troops to control the entire nation), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia (my ex-bf is from there and has kept me abreast of the increase in terrorist activities), and The Philippines, to name a few. And that doesn't count the ancillary terrorist groups that have joined Al-Qaeda as part of "joint ventures." Ansar Al-Islam is one group off the top of my head.
Al-Qaeda and their terrorist bretheren are like decentralized computing. You kill one branch and the others keep on ticking. Just because we haven't seen an attack doesn't mean their activities have diminished worldwide.
Btw, there wasn't an Al-Qaeda terrorist attack on US soil since the 1993 World Trade bombing until 2001. You want to attribute that 8 year stretch of homeland peace to Bill Clinton's handy leadership in the war against terrorism? So good, you didn't even notice it.
Vince said:
Iran disclosed that they're working on a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes (yea right). But we can't attack them based off that alone. Libya was certainly a great turning point. However every bad situation has its silver lining.
We ignored North Korea for over a year after they admitted in late 2002 they were going to have 3-6 bombs by mid to late 2003. I don't know what's worse, not knowing that a country you made a treaty with has pulled the wool over your eyes and apparently continued to develop nukes, or knowing decisively that they would have a nuke (mainly because they were flaunting it) and had no compunction about selling that to the highest bidder, and doing absolutely nothing about it because you're interested in a country that might have had nukes and other assorted wmd.
Speaking of highest bidders, who happens to be the most well known billionaire fugitive this side of the Euphrates?
Vince said:
When the Pentagon releases a report calling Global Warming the greatest threat mankind will face over the next century, I think the time for research is over. Especially when the administration conducting the research has suspect appointments to the very committees that are supposed to be conducting unbiased research.
Courtesy of DemoCoder
Vince said:We finally have accountability inn the school system under an initiative voted on by the Democratic presidential contender and even the guy whose killed more people with his car than I have with my gun, Ted Kennedy. It's about time the government introduces a free-market-esque facet to the educational system while allowing us to see where our students are preforming. But, what was that line of yours John - "Teaching for tests, not learning" or something to that effect? I forgot about the crib-sheet design and probabilistic scantron selection provisions....
NCLB is an awful program in legalistic structure and funding. And about John Kerry voting for it and now being against it? He was and is a waffling opportunistic idiot. That's all I have to say on that bit.
Vince said:
Alan Greenspan seems to disagree with you there.
Vince said:
Unfortunately for worse once the largest voting bloc in the history of this country retires, realizes how they're getting stiffed ($3000 coverage gap), and applies stiff political pressure to close it. Not to mention the fact that the price for this has already increased 34% and it hasn't even been implemented yet. I still don't know how the AARP signed on to this one, but they definitely have a lot of disgruntled seniors on their hands atm.
Vince said:
No politician is going to touch SS for years until they're forced to. None of them, republican or democrat, have the spine to do it.
[EDIT]Goddamn edits.....[/EDIT]
Joe DeFuria said:
I'm not gonna point out your low-fly contradictions, sorry, but let me sum up shortly your comments on NY and me: you're such a redneck.
Plain and simple... just like your apparently beloved sicko' in the White House - I'll be really happy to see him walk back where he came from: to his farm.
He always supposed to stay down there - that's enough for him.
Guys, let's leave the name calling and personal attacks out of these threads. I know it's not easy when it comes to politics and religion, but. . . .
Natoma said:
Yep, being intelligent is such a burden to ask of one
Natoma said:
First of all, Terrorist Activity is suppose to be attracted to Iraq - that's kinda a subpoint of the theme I've been carrying. But, I guess I'm "asking too much."
Also, there is hardly a comeback in Afghanistan. This has been rumored in liberal circles since 2002 and nothing has come of it. See here
Natoma said:
Again, these are positive signs of America's effectiveness. Al-Qaeda's strength was it's hierarchial control, funding and international reach. The hierarchy is severed and the funds are gone. The virtual state has most likely splintered into it's regional factions which is why you're seeing such localized attacks.
Natoma said:
I disagree highly. Al-Qaeda doesn't have the funding, control and reach when it's operating in just cells. For example, it's clear that the American Cells pre-Sept 11th pulled off the attack only with the funding and direction of the centralized hierarchy. This is analogous to all the Al-Qaeda attacks pre-9/11.
Unless, you can explain to me how this "decentralized computing" is proved by the pre-9/11 attackers which raised their own funds, operatd under their own direction and were trained themselvs. You can't... end of story.
Natoma said:There wasn't a terrorist attack on US soil since the 1993 World Trade bombing until 2001. You want to attribute that 8 year stretch of homeland peace to Bill Clinton's handy leadership in the war against terrorism? So good, you didn't even notice it.
During those 8 years, Al-Qaeda moved to Afghanistan and opened their training camps. They also planted the Sept-11 cells and had several attempts on the American homeland which were luckily caught by the FBI/CIA such as the Pacific Airliner attack, or the New Years 2000 attack.
The difference, Natoma, since you won't put it together yourself, is that during Clinton's 8 years Al-Qaeda was training in a stable country with stable funds flowing in - today they're being hunted and 75% of their upper hierarchy is dead.
Natoma said:Iran disclosed that they're working on a nuclear reactor for peaceful purposes (yea right). But we can't attack them based off that alone. Libya was certainly a great turning point. However every bad situation has its silver lining.
Yeah, alot of silver you've overlooked here huh?
Natoma said:
Well, truth be told, we wouldn't have had this problem if someone's earlier policies weren't so blind when dealing with your described, "most well known billionaire fugitive this side of the Euphrates?"
Natoma said:
(a) The Pentagon report is a joke, this was made clear in that thread.
(b) With all due respect to Democoder, he mistook bioethics for biology research. There's quite a difference. He also attacked Leon Kass, a man I've met, is highly educated in the biological sciences and well respected in the ethics community. His attacking of Kass for his personal views is no better than Kass's outspoken views on bioethics.
Natoma said:
Um, IIRC he said exact what I repeated. That the debt is managable, the spending needs to be controlled.
Natoma said:
Well, we differ here. I think there is a strong Conservative push to get this done in the lame-duck session.
Edit: Correctly attributed quotes. Sorry 'bout that.
