PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: ooseven on March 04, 2004, 03:02:12 PM
-
Bush Campaign Defends Ads With 9/11 Images
(AP) - President Bush\'s re-election campaign on Thursday defended commercials using images from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including wreckage of the World Trade Center, as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror. Some families of the victims of the attacks are angry with Bush for airing the spots, which they called in poor taste and for the president\'s political gain
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_el_pr/bush_political_ads_9
-
How is this any worse from mudslinging?
Let them use what they want, Americans, rather most, will know who to vote for.
-
Dude so what? 9/11 was the biggest thing about his term, and it illustrates what he had to overcome as an obstacle. Cry me a river.
-
I hardly think 9/11 was an obstacle for Bush, politically.
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
Dude so what? 9/11 was the biggest thing about his term, and it illustrates what he had to overcome as an obstacle. Cry me a river.
this is true..it sounds crazy me defending bush..but i found nothing wrong with him using 911 as part of his campaign. it was a historical moment in his term..And not to sound harsh but some people need to get over that..i\'ve had people die before and i know it\'s great pain..but some of the 911 victims are just being pathetic..
there were various designs for the ground zero memorial..and to me all of the designs were in good taste..but some 911 victims even were upset about that! people will complain no matter how good your intentions are..
-
its not wrong, im just pissed the american people will be so easily mislead by this.....
-
Go away, ooseven.
-
Its crazy that it happened 2 years ago, still seems like it was just last week.
-
I think the problem with Bush\'s bright idea was that he took a disastrous event that happened in this country and made it into pure propaganda. The way he puts himself on the Ad makes it seem like he was responsible for pulling this Country through. 9/11 shouldn’t be used as propaganda. The Ad exemplifies Bush\'s disparity of trying to win the American public back by attacking the wounds that 9/11 left behind. I\'m with Ooseven on this one.
In the Ad all he is trying to do is win votes by pulling at the heartstrings. Why doesn’t he address the poor economy, sky-high gas prices, education and all the other junk he spoke of making better?
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Why doesn’t he address the poor economy, sky-high gas prices, education and all the other junk he spoke of making better?
Because he wouldn\'t get elected?
-
I sense sarcasm...
But you know what I mean. I\'m pretty sure Kerry will attack him on those issues. And also that is exactly why those Ads are offensive to some people. Using the death of thousands as a propaganda tool is a desperate attempt to win people back.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
I sense sarcasm...
But you know what I mean. I\'m pretty sure Kerry will attack him on those issues. And also that is exactly why those Ads are offensive to some people. Using the death of thousands as a propaganda tool is a desperate attempt to win people back.
i see what you\'re sayin..but i still feel it wasn\'t in bad taste in how he used 911..i don\'t see how you figure he wasn\'t going to use that. i don\'t care to much for bush but when 911 happened i wanted some action..i wanted bush to bomb the hell outa whoever was responsible. Next series of ads will focus on the war & how HE caught saddam! :rolleyes: :p
-
I\'m pretty sure any President would of gone to war under the cirmustances. That is the only decision I have ever supported. Now that you mention it, "he" still hasn\'t caught Osama.
Yeah, his next Ads will probably feature a close up of Hussein and Bush in an army uniform saluting the flag while Cheney is kissing the tombs of the 9/11 victims.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Why doesn’t he address the poor economy, sky-high gas prices, education and all the other junk he spoke of making better?
The Economy is actually not as bad as you think it is. Tourism and restaurants took a huge hit due to 9/11, mad cow is hurting a lot of West Coast restaurants (my brother is general manager of Black Angus). Here\'s a factoid : when people have more money, they tend to spend more. Poor isn\'t getting poorer and the rich put their money back into the economy by investing in businesses and thier stocks. However, poor people tend to keep thier money for "rainy days" and they get too many rainy days. THeir money doesn\'t get circulated as much as the middles class and the rich.
Gas prices? Do you really think the President controls the price of gas? Here\'s a hint : NO.
Education : where I live, our city has received more funding than any city in the country and the kids still are stupid and still killing each other. More money to schools does not equal to better students. You should know this.
Thank you, Mr. President Bush! I have more money coming back from my tax refund. Looks like I will be hiring some people to fix up my condo a little better.
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
-
So are we All saying it\'s ok to use a national ... nay INTERNATIONAL Atrocity as basis for your Presidential Campaign ?
Like i said
[sarcasm]
Very Tasteful Mr Bush... Very Tasteful
[/sarcasm]
-
I don\'t think it\'s distastful. Now....British cuisine....THAT\'S distastful! :D
-
Yeah, let\'s just forget that Bush\'s approval rating was through the roof following 9/11 due to the way he led our distraught nation after that horrible tragedy. I can see why people are bothered, but personally I think it\'s fine. In the ad, they don\'t dwell on 9/11.. they simple "mention" it and acknowledge the fact that Bush helped make this country safer following the action.
Now folks all over, even those not directly affected by 9/11 are crying foul. Then.. I notice that they\'re wearing Dean pins, and Kucinich pins, and waving Kerry For President signs around. Seriously.. :D
-
I love how people say, "Bush led us through that terrible ordeal."
How did Bush lead us through?
Did he come to your house and talk you through your personal issues? NO!
Did he visit the families of all those that died? NO!
Did he catch the man responsible?NO!
All he did was go on TV, and say, "You are either with us, or against us.", went to war in Afghanistan, which accomplished NOTHING except to drive Al queda even deeper and increase thier recruitment, and he went and HID for a month somewhere in Texas. HE VANSIHED AFTER 9/11!
Bush has repeatedly used 9/11 politically to achieve ends he wanted before this even happened.
Before this happened, the week after he got in office he commisioned a department to discuss us going back into Iraq.
He had plans to reinvade before 9/11 happened and before the weapon inspectors ever left.
He is using the images of 9/11 to make people think that because of Him, our savior, our dolt in shining armor, it hasn\'t happened again. Him using those images , in my opinion, also subletly states that if he isn\'t in office it might happen again.
Its low, its distasteful. It\'ll probably help him get re-elected.
-
Originally posted by Faithdies
I love how people say, "Bush led us through that terrible ordeal."
How did Bush lead us through?
Did he come to your house and talk you through your personal issues? NO!
Did he visit the families of all those that died? NO!
Did he catch the man responsible?NO!
All he did was go on TV, and say, "You are either with us, or against us.", went to war in Afghanistan, which accomplished NOTHING except to drive Al queda even deeper and increase thier recruitment, and he went and HID for a month somewhere in Texas. HE VANSIHED AFTER 9/11!
Bush has repeatedly used 9/11 politically to achieve ends he wanted before this even happened.
Before this happened, the week after he got in office he commisioned a department to discuss us going back into Iraq.
He had plans to reinvade before 9/11 happened and before the weapon inspectors ever left.
He is using the images of 9/11 to make people think that because of Him, our savior, our dolt in shining armor, it hasn\'t happened again. Him using those images , in my opinion, also subletly states that if he isn\'t in office it might happen again.
Its low, its distasteful. It\'ll probably help him get re-elected.
that is all true..but just look at it from a general standpoint
1--he led the country in the wake of 911. (generally)
looking into it more--(so what he was the pres. he did what he was supposed to do. same goes for the mayor..did we expect anything less?
2--he caught saddam.(will get votes in general just for that)
looking into it more (so what..some feel iraq was not a threat and so far no wmd\'s reason we went to war)
3--the stock market has improved somewhat on his watch (he will get votes generally because of this)..my knowledge of the stocks is not that great but i know that i think the dow or the idustrial stocks went above 10,000 for the first time in years..don\'t know if he had anything to do with it.
4--gays rights i think he will lose some votes here for reasons i don\'t even have to list.
5--this is my personal take on the pres. he gave americans that tax cut not too long ago and he wants to make them permanent. that goes a long way with me. even tho. they are spending billions on iraq & other shit he still finds time to give some money back to the people.
i\'m not big on bush but the democrats are not feelin\' those tax cuts,..they keep sayin\' we have to balance the budget. Which means what?...higher taxes! Get real nobody is ever goin\' to balance the budget..so why not give to the "people" and balance the budget at the same time? It could be done..anytime congress can approve 83 billion at the drop of a dime, anything\'s possible.
ps: i consider myself a democrat, but at this moment i\'m not feelin\' anything the democrats are sayin\'
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
The Economy is actually not as bad as you think it is. Tourism and restaurants took a huge hit due to 9/11, mad cow is hurting a lot of West Coast restaurants (my brother is general manager of Black Angus). Here\'s a factoid : when people have more money, they tend to spend more. Poor isn\'t getting poorer and the rich put their money back into the economy by investing in businesses and thier stocks. However, poor people tend to keep thier money for "rainy days" and they get too many rainy days. THeir money doesn\'t get circulated as much as the middles class and the rich.
Gas prices? Do you really think the President controls the price of gas? Here\'s a hint : NO.
Education : where I live, our city has received more funding than any city in the country and the kids still are stupid and still killing each other. More money to schools does not equal to better students. You should know this.
Thank you, Mr. President Bush! I have more money coming back from my tax refund. Looks like I will be hiring some people to fix up my condo a little better.
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
Really?! When people have more money they can spend more?! Wow, now that\'s news!
...
So what are you trying to say, that if the "poor" people (AKA Democrats) weren\'t to be so selfish and start spending their money, the economy would be much better? Hmm...maybe if the people were rich enough to begin with they would have businesses and stocks they can invest into...You really didn\'t back up your "the economy isn\'t that bad" statement. Why? B/c your probably too busy spending your money.
Thanks for the insult. But was I the one that responded in a stupid and childish manner to one of Ooseven\'s post? If the money for education made people like you, I see your point. Other than that, money means more classes, more money for districts to spend on equipment, more money for extracurricular classes, sports, new schools and the list goes on. I know that one of Bush\'s tax cuts only benefits people with a certain amount of income. Yeah, I suppose those with more money need the extra money to get their kids through college...
Thank you Mr. Bush! Now my parents can enjoy the tax-refund they got! Even though they didn\'t get the extra money because you know, they aren\'t rich, but that\'s A-Ok! Hopefully tomorrow at school, we will have those new computers we need for the Computer team! wait...it got slashed!! NO more money!!
You know clips, your post reminds me of this famous quote:
"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country"
You said it yourself, it will be impossible to balance the budget. Besides, who is it really affecting? The 150K a year income or the less than 50k a year income? We all pay taxes, and raising the taxes is and will probably be the only way to get the country out of the hole which GWB has slowly and painfully made.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Really?! When people have more money they can spend more?! Wow, now that\'s news!
...
So what are you trying to say, that if the "poor" people (AKA Democrats) weren\'t to be so selfish and start spending their money, the economy would be much better? Hmm...maybe if the people were rich enough to begin with they would have businesses and stocks they can invest into...You really didn\'t back up your "the economy isn\'t that bad" statement. Why? B/c your probably too busy spending your money.
Thanks for the insult. But was I the one that responded in a stupid and childish manner to one of Ooseven\'s post? If the money for education made people like you, I see your point. Other than that, money means more classes, more money for districts to spend on equipment, more money for extracurricular classes, sports, new schools and the list goes on. I know that one of Bush\'s tax cuts only benefits people with a certain amount of income. Yeah, I suppose those with more money need the extra money to get their kids through college...
Thank you Mr. Bush! Now my parents can enjoy the tax-refund they got! Even though they didn\'t get the extra money because you know, they aren\'t rich, but that\'s A-Ok! Hopefully tomorrow at school, we will have those new computers we need for the Computer team! wait...it got slashed!! NO more money!!
You know clips, your post reminds me of this famous quote:
"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country"
You said it yourself, it will be impossible to balance the budget. Besides, who is it really affecting? The 150K a year income or the less than 50k a year income? We all pay taxes, and raising the taxes is and will probably be the only way to get the country out of the hole which GWB has slowly and painfully made.
y\'know mystic i usually agree with you on some points when you post (some of those giga & mystic debates are already classic. ;) )but i gotta disagree with you on this one..jim florio was the govenor of n.j. & he did exactly that. raised taxes..and practically ruined the economy for the state..large businesses was leaving..property tax was through the roof at the time..(it\'s high now but back then he raised taxes on everything!)..raising taxes is not the answer...congress will still find ways to spend, spend spend..& the rasing of taxes will be for naught.
that said i do agree with you on the point of having more money into education. It does make a difference..if you have the proper resources in place, students will achieve to their potential..of course the students have to put forth some effort but that goes without saying.
as far as the tax cut is concerned. for whatever reason bush gave us the tax cut,,..and i was glad to see that check in the mail. sadly there will always be the rich & the poor,..there is really no middle class..maybe i\'m a slave to some degree for the green,..but let\'s face it we need money to survive & that is what make the world go round. I realize the tax cuts are mearly a bone the pres. threw at us,..and he\'s pimpin\' the american public good, but every little bit helps.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Really?! When people have more money they can spend more?! Wow, now that\'s news!
...
So what are you trying to say, that if the "poor" people (AKA Democrats) weren\'t to be so selfish and start spending their money, the economy would be much better? Hmm...maybe if the people were rich enough to begin with they would have businesses and stocks they can invest into...You really didn\'t back up your "the economy isn\'t that bad" statement. Why? B/c your probably too busy spending your money.
Thanks for the insult. But was I the one that responded in a stupid and childish manner to one of Ooseven\'s post? If the money for education made people like you, I see your point. Other than that, money means more classes, more money for districts to spend on equipment, more money for extracurricular classes, sports, new schools and the list goes on. I know that one of Bush\'s tax cuts only benefits people with a certain amount of income. Yeah, I suppose those with more money need the extra money to get their kids through college...
Thank you Mr. Bush! Now my parents can enjoy the tax-refund they got! Even though they didn\'t get the extra money because you know, they aren\'t rich, but that\'s A-Ok! Hopefully tomorrow at school, we will have those new computers we need for the Computer team! wait...it got slashed!! NO more money!!
You know clips, your post reminds me of this famous quote:
"Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country"
You said it yourself, it will be impossible to balance the budget. Besides, who is it really affecting? The 150K a year income or the less than 50k a year income? We all pay taxes, and raising the taxes is and will probably be the only way to get the country out of the hole which GWB has slowly and painfully made.
Since when did I say Democrats are poor? Are you insinuating that there are no rich Democrats? That\'s absurd. The Dow Jones has recovered from its slump since Clinton left, since 9/11...the stocks are above 10,000.
I still don\'t see where I insulted you.
Lemme repeat what I just said about the school district that has received MORE money than any other district in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : the money invested has equaled to zero improvement. The kids here are still one of the worst average in the US. They have computers, they have vocational programs, after school programs, specialized classes.....still NO IMPROVEMENT. Do you know the meaning of (I\'ll quote myself)
More money to schools does not equal to better students.
I\'ll rephrase it for you : it does NOT NECESSARILY (or not always or not 100%) mean BETTER STUDENTS.
Think of it this way, I can buy you Nike shoes but that doesn\'t make you a better basketball player. ?Intiende?
Defecit. As simple as I can put it in one sentence :
Government spending greater than the money it collects taxes from its people.
Surplus : Government taxing more money from people greater than what it needs to spend.
It may sound silly but that\'s about as simple as I can make it.
Bush Sr. had to balance the budget as best he could by curtailing its Reagan era spending. It sent many companies into a nose dive when the gov\'t stopped its massive spending. By the time Clinton took over, the balance had almost been attained, but Clinton took the credit.
W. Bush Jr was going to coninue that balance but 9/11 and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan tilted that balance to a defecit. Still, on the whole, American business is going steady and still getting better. There are still a lot of companies and corporations still hurting from the tech collapse from the Clinton 90\'s. But they\'ve learned their lesson from over-expanding and they\'re slowly recovering from that.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Bush Sr. had to balance the budget as best he could by curtailing its Reagan era spending. It sent many companies into a nose dive when the gov\'t stopped its massive spending. By the time Clinton took over, the balance had almost been attained, but Clinton took the credit.
You have NO idea what you are talking about. Bush Sr raised government spending levels while in office. Clinton cut back government spending more than any president in modern history(since the late 40s).
Using your logic the government should have bottomed out. It didn\'t. It experienced one of the greatest surpluses ever.
Still, regardless of how much spending(overall) has been lowered since 1980, Dubya has managed to raise the government\'s spending levels and lower the defecit worse than Reagans ABSOLUTE worst.
(look it up).
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
You have NO idea what you are talking about. Bush Sr raised government spending levels while in office. Clinton cut back government spending more than any president in modern history(since the late 40s).
Using your logic the government should have bottomed out. It didn\'t. It experienced one of the greatest surpluses ever.
Still, regardless of how much spending(overall) has been lowered since 1980, Dubya has managed to raise the government\'s spending levels and lower the defecit worse than Reagans ABSOLUTE worst.
(look it up).
As far as I recall, Congress had him by the balls and they pretty much had him raise taxes. Bush DID reduce spending when he took over after Reagan. Which Bush are you talking about? Clinton raised taxes and did lower spending via military cutbacks. Bush Jr. knew better and put more money back into the military.
EDIT : Bush jr has a war to spend money on. What\'d you expect?
-
Regarding the US governments spending - have you all forgotten how 9/11 impacted not only our security (defense spending) - but it also impacted numerous industries that the government had to help out as well.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
As far as I recall, Congress had him by the balls and they pretty much had him raise taxes. Bush DID reduce spending when he took over after Reagan. Which Bush are you talking about? Clinton raised taxes and did lower spending via military cutbacks. Bush Jr. knew better and put more money back into the military.
EDIT : Bush jr has a war to spend money on. What\'d you expect?
Bush Sr. raised government spending over the course of his term. Look at the numbers. I just don\'t see how you can say that Bush Sr. boosted the economy when all he did was spend money we didn\'t have.
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Regarding the US governments spending - have you all forgotten how 9/11 impacted not only our security (defense spending) - but it also impacted numerous industries that the government had to help out as well.
Bush Jr. has been spending since day one. Bush raised spending almost immediately after inauguration, well before 9/11.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Bush Jr. has been spending since day one. Bush raised spending almost immediately after inauguration, well before 9/11.
Reference please
-
Taken from here. (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/2003_Dec_8/111023085/p1/article.jhtml)
....The results on actual as opposed to estimated spending for Bush are horrific and present a worse record than for Bill Clinton. The paper conveniently starts with 2002. If one starts with fiscal 2000 under Clinton as a base, NONDEFENSE outlays increased 4.7 percent in 2001, 6.2 percent in 2002 and 6.99 percent in 2003. On DISCRETIONARY NONDEFENSE spending, it increased 10.9 percent in 2002 and 11.2 percent in 2003, WITH HOMELAND SECURITY TOO SMALL TO AFFECT THE RATES SUBSTANTIALLY. By comparison, the average of the Clinton years was only a 6 percent increase for discretionary spending....
^^^Article is about 3 pages long.
BTW, caps added for emphasis.
Taken from here. (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/2004_Feb_2/112723167/p1/article.jhtml)
...The GOP has become the party of big spending...
^^^Related
-
From your link -
"Bolten argues that the president hasn\'t vetoed a single spending bill because "he hasn\'t needed to." It\'s more likely that the president hasn\'t vetoed any spending bills because he hasn\'t wanted to. Each spending bill that has come to his desk has represented a new vote-buying opportunity, whether it was the big education bill in 2001, the big farm bill in 2002 or the even bigger Medicare prescription-drug bill in 2003."
Which one of those 3 bills is worthy of a veto? Dems cry for Health Care and Education. Farms in general have been in trouble since the late 70\'s and early 80\'s so that is nothing new.
Lets not even get into the spending programs that the Dems support. The economy was weak BEFORE Bush took office and then 9/11 came and we were engaged in 2 wars. As far as the deficit is concerned - the only reason we had a surplus when Clinton was in office is because the Republican Congress forced Clinton not to spend.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
From your link -
As far as the deficit is concerned - the only reason we had a surplus when Clinton was in office is because the Republican Congress forced Clinton not to spend.
And also, during Bush Sr, it was the Democrat controlled Congress that forced him to spend.
-
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
What happened to republicans being fiscally responsible? Did you even read the first quote? What does 9/11 have to do with increased nondefense spending? Can you not look at this without trying to blame it on the democrats?
The republicans control the execuctive AND legislative branches of government. WHAT IS THE EXCUSE FOR THE EXCESSIVE SPENDING?!?! 9/11? If we have to increase spending for defensive purposes why are we increasing spending on domestic purposes? To say "Dems cry for Health Care and Education" is a straight cop out. The GOP strategy to beat the Democrats in the next election is to implement Democratic policy? Does that even make sense? If the Dems were already spending too much on Health Care and Education WHY RAISE THE AMOUNT?
Am I the only person that finds this ridiculous?
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
And also, during Bush Sr, it was the Democrat controlled Congress that forced him to spend.
So who is forcing Bush Jr. to spend?
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
What happened to republicans being fiscally responsible? Did you even read the first quote? What does 9/11 have to do with increased nondefense spending? Can you not look at this without trying to blame it on the democrats?
The republicans control the execuctive AND legislative branches of government. WHAT IS THE EXCUSE FOR THE EXCESSIVE SPENDING?!?! 9/11? If we have to increase spending for defensive purposes why are we increasing spending on domestic purposes? To say "Dems cry for Health Care and Education" is a straight cop out. The GOP strategy to beat the Democrats in the next election is to implement Democratic policy? Does that even make sense? If the Dems were already spending too much on Health Care and Education WHY RAISE THE AMOUNT?
Am I the only person that finds this ridiculous?
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
Once again I ask you - which of those three bills should have been vetoed? That is where the bulk of the non defense/homeland security spending is taking place. Even though I believe military/homeland spending is the major culprit behind the deficit in the budget.
I don\'t understand how you can blame the president for everything that is wrong with the economy - I suppose you forgot about the legislative branch. I find it funny that the dust has barely settled from 9/11 and people such as you scoff at the notion that it has indeed effected our economy and the amount of government spending.
-
Wow talk about timing - this just came up on Yahoo - Washington Post Article:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20040308/ts_washpost/a38812_2004mar7
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
Am I the only person that finds this ridiculous?
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
No Your not...
in fact its not only confined to the US... the Same Shit happens here.
Except we have Teflon Tony and His Army of Spin doctors "telling" you what you should think.
But its not too hard to cut through this bullshist...
For example .... this wasn\'t too hard to find.
23 January- National audit Office (NAO) report reveals that 20 defence procurement projects are more than nine months overdue and £3.1 Billion over budget.
25 Febuary Tony Blair tells civil service to be more like the armed forces in "remorseless focus on delivery"
Conclusion
Teflon Tony been at the CRACK again.....
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
What happened to republicans being fiscally responsible? Did you even read the first quote? What does 9/11 have to do with increased nondefense spending? Can you not look at this without trying to blame it on the democrats?
The republicans control the execuctive AND legislative branches of government. WHAT IS THE EXCUSE FOR THE EXCESSIVE SPENDING?!?! 9/11? If we have to increase spending for defensive purposes why are we increasing spending on domestic purposes? To say "Dems cry for Health Care and Education" is a straight cop out. The GOP strategy to beat the Democrats in the next election is to implement Democratic policy? Does that even make sense? If the Dems were already spending too much on Health Care and Education WHY RAISE THE AMOUNT?
Am I the only person that finds this ridiculous?
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
No. Not your not.9/11 is the splinter in every American\'s heart. The Republicans and Bush will continue to use 9/11 to move the splinter and try to cause more pain on Americans. Americans hearts will soften and Bush and co. will come in and "try to heal the wounds" with spending more money on what they please. To the people it won\'t matter what is slashed and cut off. As long as they are kept "safe" everything will be fine.
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
What happened to republicans being fiscally responsible? Did you even read the first quote? What does 9/11 have to do with increased nondefense spending? Can you not look at this without trying to blame it on the democrats?
The republicans control the execuctive AND legislative branches of government. WHAT IS THE EXCUSE FOR THE EXCESSIVE SPENDING?!?! 9/11? If we have to increase spending for defensive purposes why are we increasing spending on domestic purposes? To say "Dems cry for Health Care and Education" is a straight cop out. The GOP strategy to beat the Democrats in the next election is to implement Democratic policy? Does that even make sense? If the Dems were already spending too much on Health Care and Education WHY RAISE THE AMOUNT?
Am I the only person that finds this ridiculous?
9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11 - 9/11
:werd: he hit it right on the nail with that quote..americans cannot contiunue to use 911 as their scapegoat.
now lookin at the facts giga stated( i like to look at all the facts from every angle ;) ) concerning the bills that was put forth in front of bush..i feel he has a valid point..there\'s no way the pres can veto any of those bills, education, medicare & the farmers bill. it\'s hard to veto any of them since he was catching heat on all of those issues...nontheless those 3 nonmilitary issues alone are not the reason the amer. economy is in the the situation it is in today.
trade we have with other countries is unfair..nonbody has challeged this
amer jobs being lost to other countries manufacturing , technology sector..meh i\'ll stop ..i stated this already in another thread.
point is just because bush couldn\'t veto those bills is not the sole reason why amer is in the state it\'s in...the pres. doesn\'t run the country..big wealthy businesses do, but he\'s not doing anything to stop it..he\'s being pimped by them too.
-
Let\'s face it. The most powerful country in the world today is being ran by someone who has just a point or two higher IQ than a monkey. Seriously though, he lacks everything a good president should have except he can speak well in a crowd. Big shit.
I think we have all learned a valuable lesson, do not elect a stereotypical texan into office.
-
I have this sudden urge to hug you...The man doesn\'t even even write his own speeches so you can\'t give him that. I mean, he doesn\'t know how to hold a book the right way!
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
I have this sudden urge to hug you...The man doesn\'t even even write his own speeches so you can\'t give him that. I mean, he doesn\'t know how to hold a book the right way!
agreed..but it\'s a well known fact all presidents speeches are written for them..but it\'s seems he can\'t hold a decent conversation to get his point across..about a month ago he was on some show being interviwed about the intelligence he received concerning iraq.
the guy doing the interview asked him "so do you belive the intelligence was flawed?" bush replied " It doens\'t matter..saddam was a bad man & the people of iraq are enjoying freedom"
interviewer--"was iraq an immediate threat?" bush.."according to the intelligence he had wmd programs" ..funny how he changed it from wmd..to wmd programs! :rolleyes: bush looked incredibly stupid in that interview..all he kept sayin was saddam was a bad man..for every question the interviewer had..that is all that bush stated.
bush stopped short of saying the intelligence was flawed & the interviewer stated "well if you feel that the intell. wasn\'t fully realized do you think it was wise to go to war if there was no real threat?..he went on to say.."y\'know you sent young men & women to fight because of the intelligence,.. those same men & women are dying.
this is getting long but i\'ll end it with bush stating such rhetoric as "i have alot of respect for our men & women blah blah blah..but stated saddam needed to be dealt with...
i admire him a little for takin the interview unscripted..but he just looked plain silly...
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
I have this sudden urge to hug you...The man doesn\'t even even write his own speeches so you can\'t give him that. I mean, he doesn\'t know how to hold a book the right way!
Most modern day American Presidents don\'t write their own speeches. Add one point to your IQ, thanks to me again. I\'ll make a smart citizen out of you yet.
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Most modern day American Presidents don\'t write their own speeches. Add one point to your IQ, thanks to me again. I\'ll make a smart citizen out of you yet.
sorry g-man i beat you to it..take a look at my first statement in my post..thread skimmer!
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
Most modern day American Presidents don\'t write their own speeches. Add one point to your IQ, thanks to me again. I\'ll make a smart citizen out of you yet.
Aww, that is so sweeeet!!! Honestly, I was being sarcastic. I know not one President writes their own speeches. Deduct one IQ point because you thought you taught me something. At least other Presidents know how not to look stupid in front of people. Remember that site with the talking GWB doll?! Yup, he sure did say all those things. Besides GOP SUCKS!
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Aww, that is so sweeeet!!! Honestly, I was being sarcastic. I know not one President writes their own speeches. Deduct one IQ point because you thought you taught me something. At least other Presidents know how not to look stupid in front of people. Remember that site with the talking GWB doll?! Yup, he sure did say all those things. Besides GOP SUCKS!
You were being sarcastic? No. You really believed that until clips and I made you one IQ point smarter.
I\'ll be generous and give you another point. You said you "know not one President [that] writes their own speeches."
Factoid for SirMystiq the mongoloid :
President Lincoln (a Republican - remember, you don\'t like Republicans) wrote the Gettysburg Address and many of his other speeches. He actually wrote it on the way there.
I\'ll even quote myself from a few messages above that SHOULD have clued you in....
Most modern day American Presidents don\'t write their own speeches.
-
Ok...You win?
That was so long ago those President\'s weren\'t even in my mind. And It\'s not safe to assume that I didn\'t know that most Presidents don\'t write their own speeches. You know what ASSUMING makes us.
Lincoln was one of the OLD Republicans. He actually stuck to the title. He didn\'t go around spending useless amounts of money like todays. He actually cared for everysingle soul, and to think that freeing the slaves was a "conservative" way of thinking is pretty crazy.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Lincoln was one of the OLD Republicans. He actually stuck to the title. He didn\'t go around spending useless amounts of money like todays. He actually cared for everysingle soul.
Is that what the the title of republican stands for?
Republicans around that time were similar to today\'s democrats(in terms of ideology NOT policy). The shift didn\'t come until FDR.
-
Funny how the Federal Income Tax made its appearance around that time as well.
-
face it sirbisquick your politics are immature
-
The white house and bush is a joke, they use 9/11 in their ads, but censor the coffin pictures....
-
OMFG, was it REALLY necessary to bring back ALL of these threads?
We get the point. You don\'t like Bush. Please....stop.
-
i like his anti bush comments..i\'d like to see him & giga go at it..:D
-
Originally posted by Toxical
The white house and bush is a joke, they use 9/11 in their ads, but censor the coffin pictures....
No need to debate him - he can\'t even use proper grammar. "The white house and bush IS a joke..."
:laughing:
-
Hey Giga, you Bush mouth piece, stop being such a dork, don\'t you have a holocaust rally to go to, and some money to donate to the Israeli Defense forces so they can kill some children and occupy some more land for the chosen people?
You can\'t debate me, that is why you try to make fun of my "grammar". What the problem is fool?
Are you too scared I’d expose your Republican / pro-Israel propaganda?
-
Giga can debate with anyone. He\'s one of the smartest conservatives on the boards.
-
Originally posted by Toxical
Hey Giga, you Bush mouth piece, stop being such a dork, don\'t you have a holocaust rally to go to, and some money to donate to the Israeli Defense forces so they can kill some children and occupy some more land for the chosen people?
You can\'t debate me, that is why you try to make fun of my "grammar". What the problem is fool?
Are you too scared I’d expose your Republican / pro-Israel propaganda?
Thanks for the compliment Titan...
Toxical, being a Republican (I am independant) does not mean one supports Israel and I don\'t have a particular love for Israel. The fact is, Israel is fighting the same war that the US has been fighting since 9/11 - the only difference is that they deal with it on a daily basis. I applaud Sharon for taking a strong stand against terrorism and the PAL\'s. Prior to 9/11 I had some sympathy for the PAL\'s and thought Israel was wrong in its method used to protect itself. After 9/11 - when our misguided illusion that we (the US) was safe from problems that plauged other parts of the world was broken, I realize that I was wrong in judging Israel so harshly.
After dealing with the "intefadha" for the past decade or so, I would be doing the same thing to try and disuade the PAL\'s from using terror as a weapon to achieve their goal of statehood. The world would have a lot more sympathy for the PAL\'s if they didn\'t blow up innocent civilians and send children to do their dirty work. If Ghandi could drive the British from India without violence why can\'t the PAL\'s achieve the goal of establishing the state of Palestine using the same process in this day and age? If the PAL\'s took that approach Israel would most certainly be the villian on this issue.
-
Originally posted by Toxical
What the problem is fool?
Hahaha... Oh man. This guy is destroying this C.E. forum.
-
Yeah - I should have voted for a mod who would be policing the area :)
The Mr. T wannabe act is pretty amusing though.
-
Giga for mod :D
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Thanks for the compliment Titan...
Toxical, being a Republican (I am independant) does not mean one supports Israel and I don\'t have a particular love for Israel. The fact is, Israel is fighting the same war that the US has been fighting since 9/11 - the only difference is that they deal with it on a daily basis. I applaud Sharon for taking a strong stand against terrorism and the PAL\'s. Prior to 9/11 I had some sympathy for the PAL\'s and thought Israel was wrong in its method used to protect itself. After 9/11 - when our misguided illusion that we (the US) was safe from problems that plauged other parts of the world was broken, I realize that I was wrong in judging Israel so harshly.
After dealing with the "intefadha" for the past decade or so, I would be doing the same thing to try and disuade the PAL\'s from using terror as a weapon to achieve their goal of statehood. The world would have a lot more sympathy for the PAL\'s if they didn\'t blow up innocent civilians and send children to do their dirty work. If Ghandi could drive the British from India without violence why can\'t the PAL\'s achieve the goal of establishing the state of Palestine using the same process in this day and age? If the PAL\'s took that approach Israel would most certainly be the villian on this issue.
Someone should make you a Mod, then you can censor free speech and be a true Bush-fanatic.
For the people that don’t get the “what the problem is” quote, I pity you.
-
^^^
I like this guy.
Damn Titan, Giga would you please pull down your pants one more time? Titan might be making another run...
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
^^^
I like this guy.
Damn Titan, Giga would you please pull down your pants one more time? Titan might be making another run...
Please shut up...
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
"The white house and bush IS a joke..."
Never thought I would see that...
Giga calling the white house a joke...
Not very patriotic is it ;)
;)
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Never thought I would see that...
Giga calling the white house a joke...
Not very patriotic is it ;)
;)
:laughing:
I was quoting someone else ;)