Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 4, 2004 Bush is obviously exploiting it because this is his single campaign issue... he can't run on jobs, he cant run on the economy, he cant run on the mind numbing deficit, but he can run on the war on terror by beating it into our heads at every turn... THIS is his issue Bada bing! And it's not like he didn't have his chances. He could have taken a solid lead with his State of the Union speech, but the only thing that got noticed from that was a warning about steroid use. The NASA/Mars thing was underwhelming and his "Meet The Press" interview offered nothing except that he's sure he fulfilled all his National Guard duties. The gay marriage thing nearly backfired with gay marriage detractors shying away from such an extreme move as a constitutional amendment. He needs traction, and wrapping himself in 9/11 Americana and over-the-top jingoism is simply what's there. USA! USA! USA! What is that on the top left hand corner? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Highland 0 Report post Posted March 4, 2004 It looks like the Challenger explosion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 4, 2004 No one is saying that everything is fine! I realize just as much as every sane person out there, that the world is dangerous... no one is denying that terrorism exists... but this is his single issue. Did you see the Russert interview? Have you seen his stump speech? He wraps himself in this faux patriotism and he uses terrorism at every turn... he's exploiting it. He exploited terrorism to convince many (including me) that war in Iraq was necessary, and he's going to exploit it to win the election... as I've said, to convince people that without him everything is going to go up in flames, for political gain We dont need to be constantly reminded about 9/11... especially in a presidential election. No one is going to forget it... I want to hear a debate on things like jobs, on the deficit, AND on natonal security... but Bush is weak on everything except national security (and even thats debateable), and he's going to use it to the best of his ability... and it will work basically the debate will go like this: Jobs? Terrorism! Fiscal dicipline? Terrorism! Deficit?? Terrorism! and of course, that argument will be the debate between the VP candidates... the actual presidential campaign, as of Tuesday, will go like this: Vietnam veteran! Terrorism! Vietnam veteran, deficit! Terrorism...... terrorism! Vietnam veteran, healthcare, medicare! Terrorism... terrorism... Jesus... gay marriage ... terrorism! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 4, 2004 I don't necessarily agree with people in the article (and I was going to school in Manhattan when the attacks hit) but if Bush wants to stay out of even having the appearance of exploitation he better change his attitude fast. I already know you dont think Bush would exploit anyone or anything... Oh really you know me now? I've seen the ad, but because I don't agree with what the firefigher's UNION HEAD (who just so happened to endorse Kerry) and SOME victims family said I guess that makes me nothing but an empty headed political tool of W right? Don't you dare generalize about me fucktard. In fact feel free to click on "all posts by this user" and see where I shamelessly lick Bush's arse and then come back to me (no, anytime I disagree with you does not necessarily count). 'fucktard'? 'arse licking'?...welcome to the eighth grade, we got fun and games Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 4, 2004 You're simplifying. This isn't October 2001 friends, the "OMGPATRIOTISMNOWFLAGSFLAGSFLAGS" period is over and done with for better or for worse. Will 9/11 be mentioned? How the fuck can it not be mentioned? I'll wait until 9/11 is used to attack Kerry's foreign policy before I cry foul but mentioning that it was a challenge the US faced...I just don't see it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 4, 2004 I don't necessarily agree with people in the article (and I was going to school in Manhattan when the attacks hit) but if Bush wants to stay out of even having the appearance of exploitation he better change his attitude fast. I already know you dont think Bush would exploit anyone or anything... Oh really you know me now? I've seen the ad, but because I don't agree with what the firefigher's UNION HEAD (who just so happened to endorse Kerry) and SOME victims family said I guess that makes me nothing but an empty headed political tool of W right? Don't you dare generalize about me fucktard. In fact feel free to click on "all posts by this user" and see where I shamelessly lick Bush's arse and then come back to me (no, anytime I disagree with you does not necessarily count). 'fucktard'? 'arse licking'?...welcome to the eighth grade, we got fun and games I see, once again, you addressed exactly shit. Nice job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted March 4, 2004 From the sound of it, you HAVE forgotten and how serious it is. I don't know how you could say he "fakes" his patriotism. You can call him a simple man if you like, but I don't doubt that he loves this country and is determined to see to it that we are safe from our enemies. Iraq obviously is a polarizing issue, and there's no doubt he had his eye on Saddam from the start but I feel it does make us safer. I'd like to go in there and invade North Korea, but he has nukes. We got to Saddam before he got nukes and could have been a real threat to us or blackmails us by threatening Israel. Anyway, 9/11 and terrorism deserve to be emphasized because they are the single most important issue to us. Nothing should be more important than the threat of death. I believe he is very sincere. Of course he's using the issue to help his re-election but I believe he is geniune. I honestly do not feel John Kerry makes our country more safe than George W. Bush would. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 4, 2004 I never said it shouldnt be mentioned... I stated above that I think National Security should be an issue... my problem is that it seems to be the only thing Dubyah talks about. I know I keep mentioning the Russert interview, but it stands as a prime example... the funniest part was unintentional, where he says "I know I'm sounding a bit repetative" And the "OMGPATRIOTISMNOWFLAGSFLAGSFLAGS" era is indeed NOT over... at least not in the south, and while it may not be like it was in the days following 9/11, you can still see Dubyah wrapping himself in the flag as he tries to present himself as the real american patriot president... although to me, it still seems as if he's just trying to do a really bad impression of John Wayne Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slickster 0 Report post Posted March 4, 2004 I am completly suprised by this. really. oh my, I'm having a stroke. From the shock, most likely. Yeah, definitly not shocking.... Just really really sickening. So, uh, Bush can POINT directly to a major instance of leadership he had --- but that's exploiting? That makes as much sense as confusing a question about a voting record for an attack on one's patriotism or military service. -=Mike Oh, he can TALK about it..... but if his ads are going to be like the rest of this post, then it's overkill. 9/11NEVER FORGETREMEMBERFIGHT FOR FREEDOMGOD BLESS THE USABUSH FREEDOM FIGHTER SAVED US VOTE BUSH NOW Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 4, 2004 From the sound of it, you HAVE forgotten and how serious it is. I don't know how you could say he "fakes" his patriotism. You can call him a simple man if you like, but I don't doubt that he loves this country and is determined to see to it that we are safe from our enemies. Iraq obviously is a polarizing issue, and there's no doubt he had his eye on Saddam from the start but I feel it does make us safer. I'd like to go in there and invade North Korea, but he has nukes. We got to Saddam before he got nukes and could have been a real threat to us or blackmails us by threatening Israel. Anyway, 9/11 and terrorism deserve to be emphasized because they are the single most important issue to us. Nothing should be more important than the threat of death. I believe he is very sincere. Of course he's using the issue to help his re-election but I believe he is geniune. I honestly do not feel John Kerry makes our country more safe than George W. Bush would. Invasion = Safety...sounds like Napoleon math, or something quoted in a special education classroom. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 4, 2004 and another note... I also think Kerry is full of shit when he started bitching about "assailing his patriotism" Damnit... I was so passionate with the other candidates... I dont think I can get passionate about voting for Kerry Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 4, 2004 I don't necessarily agree with people in the article (and I was going to school in Manhattan when the attacks hit) but if Bush wants to stay out of even having the appearance of exploitation he better change his attitude fast. I already know you dont think Bush would exploit anyone or anything... Oh really you know me now? I've seen the ad, but because I don't agree with what the firefigher's UNION HEAD (who just so happened to endorse Kerry) and SOME victims family said I guess that makes me nothing but an empty headed political tool of W right? Don't you dare generalize about me fucktard. In fact feel free to click on "all posts by this user" and see where I shamelessly lick Bush's arse and then come back to me (no, anytime I disagree with you does not necessarily count). 'fucktard'? 'arse licking'?...welcome to the eighth grade, we got fun and games I see, once again, you addressed exactly shit. Nice job. What would you like me to address? I say that this president's treatment and usage of the 9-11 victims is appaling and ill. You say your not a mindless Bush boy, but defend him with such comically-vehement words as 'fucktard' and 'arse'. It seems pretty cut and dry...I dont really think theres much to address. I am sickened and you have the maturity and vocabulary of a middle schooler. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 4, 2004 and another note... I also think Kerry is full of shit when he started bitching about "assailing his patriotism" Damnit... I was so passionate with the other candidates... I dont think I can get passionate about voting for Kerry My passion lies with my own ideals and beliefs and thoughts, and though I will continue to support the things I feel most strongly about...I will vote for Kerry, and get as many others to do so as well, in the incredible hope that the George Bush radical/Christian/warhawk right can be removed from power for the safety of our lives, livelihoods, and freedoms. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted March 4, 2004 and another note... I also think Kerry is full of shit when he started bitching about "assailing his patriotism" Damnit... I was so passionate with the other candidates... I dont think I can get passionate about voting for Kerry My passion lies with my own ideals and beliefs and thoughts, and though I will continue to support the things I feel most strongly about...I will vote for Kerry, and get as many others to do so as well, in the incredible hope that the George Bush radical/Christian/warhawk right can be removed from power for the safety of our lives, livelihoods, and freedoms. He's hardly radical, he's a warhawk out of neccesity and I hardly think being a Christian is something to chastise someone for... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 4, 2004 I don't necessarily agree with people in the article (and I was going to school in Manhattan when the attacks hit) but if Bush wants to stay out of even having the appearance of exploitation he better change his attitude fast. I already know you dont think Bush would exploit anyone or anything... Oh really you know me now? I've seen the ad, but because I don't agree with what the firefigher's UNION HEAD (who just so happened to endorse Kerry) and SOME victims family said I guess that makes me nothing but an empty headed political tool of W right? Don't you dare generalize about me fucktard. In fact feel free to click on "all posts by this user" and see where I shamelessly lick Bush's arse and then come back to me (no, anytime I disagree with you does not necessarily count). 'fucktard'? 'arse licking'?...welcome to the eighth grade, we got fun and games I see, once again, you addressed exactly shit. Nice job. What would you like me to address? I say that this president's treatment and usage of the 9-11 victims is appaling and ill. You say your not a mindless Bush boy, but defend him with such comically-vehement words as 'fucktard' and 'arse'. It seems pretty cut and dry...I dont really think theres much to address. I am sickened and you have the maturity and vocabulary of a middle schooler. Allright let's try this again. I already know you dont think Bush would exploit anyone or anything... What gave you the impression that made you think I would never say Bush would exploit anyone? Hm? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 basically the debate will go like this: Actually, you're behind on your easily-digestable soundbytes. "We caught Saddam" is version 2.0 of "terrorism." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 basically the debate will go like this: Actually, you're behind on your easily-digestable soundbytes. "We caught Saddam" is version 2.0 of "terrorism." yeah and the funny thing is, catching Saddam really has nothing to do with the "war on terrorism" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Wildbomb 4:20 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 Just sorta to throw my two cents in... I think that Bush has every right to use his speeches after 9/11, where he rallied the American public. THAT was his instance of leadership. But to use footage of the actual attacks, or the aftermath at Ground Zero, is NOT correct. Nearly 3,000 people died there, a few people I knew, and I don't like the fact that the image of their place of death will be used in a political campaign. Trust me, if Kerry were to do the same damn thing, I'd call him out on it too. I don't think he should use footage of Vietnam battle either, unless it shows Kerry HIMSELF in the frames. Anyways, go ahead and use images of your ACTUAL leadership, not the destruction that caused the sentiment, Mr. President. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 I don't necessarily agree with people in the article (and I was going to school in Manhattan when the attacks hit) but if Bush wants to stay out of even having the appearance of exploitation he better change his attitude fast. I already know you dont think Bush would exploit anyone or anything... Oh really you know me now? I've seen the ad, but because I don't agree with what the firefigher's UNION HEAD (who just so happened to endorse Kerry) and SOME victims family said I guess that makes me nothing but an empty headed political tool of W right? Don't you dare generalize about me fucktard. In fact feel free to click on "all posts by this user" and see where I shamelessly lick Bush's arse and then come back to me (no, anytime I disagree with you does not necessarily count). 'fucktard'? 'arse licking'?...welcome to the eighth grade, we got fun and games I see, once again, you addressed exactly shit. Nice job. What would you like me to address? I say that this president's treatment and usage of the 9-11 victims is appaling and ill. You say your not a mindless Bush boy, but defend him with such comically-vehement words as 'fucktard' and 'arse'. It seems pretty cut and dry...I dont really think theres much to address. I am sickened and you have the maturity and vocabulary of a middle schooler. Allright let's try this again. I already know you dont think Bush would exploit anyone or anything... What gave you the impression that made you think I would never say Bush would exploit anyone? Hm? You defended Bush when I said he exploited 9-11. That was the indicator for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 5, 2004 For God's sake...because I don't agree that, IN THIS INSTANCE, Bush exploited 9/11 for political gain I'm in his pocket? That's a load of bullshit and you know it. I call it as I see it and in this case I didn't see Bush exploiting 9/11 for political gain. Tell me, if I was so eager to defend OMGOURGLORIOUSLEADERHISMAJESTYTHEPERFECTONESIRBUSHLOL2004~!!! then why the hell would I link to an article that talks about a fire fighter union head and members of a 9/11 victim family organization coming out against it? Because I'm braindead? Because I'm hiding my REAL motive you were brilliant enough to see? Please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 For God's sake...because I don't agree that, IN THIS INSTANCE, Bush exploited 9/11 for political gain I'm in his pocket? That's a load of bullshit and you know it. I call it as I see it and in this case I didn't see Bush exploiting 9/11 for political gain. Tell me, if I was so eager to defend OMGOURGLORIOUSLEADERHISMAJESTYTHEPERFECTONESIRBUSHLOL2004~!!! then why the hell would I link to an article that talks about a fire fighter union head and members of a 9/11 victim family organization coming out against it? Because I'm braindead? Because I'm hiding my REAL motive you were brilliant enough to see? Please. Somewhere in there I think you explained yourself to me as not being totally blindly following Bush.... Which is good... But you lose me with so much of that post being babbling and sophomoric. And, the 'OMGLOLETCETCETCETCLOL' in every post doesnt really help your case a whole lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 5, 2004 If I lose you with that...I don't know how your reading skills are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gert T 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 Here's my question if these 18 states are critical; Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Who has the edge on them now? Ohio carries 23-25 electoral votes I believe, and while Bush won easily in 2000, many Ohioans hate Gov. Bob Taft ® so I think Ohio may be close, but I think Bush has the edge right now. However in 1992, Ohio put Clinton into the White House. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 5, 2004 Somewhere in there I think you explained yourself to me as not being totally blindly following Bush.... From what I've read, I dont think he's a blind Bush follower... I just think he's probably a little more fair than those of us that hate him and give him no credit on anything Anyways, go ahead and use images of your ACTUAL leadership, not the destruction that caused the sentiment, Mr. President Allow me to be fair and non partisan for a moment... and this doesnt happen much, but I'm in a good mood today being its friday and payday, so why not? Anyway... even if Bush were to JUST use the speeches, and images of him bringing everyone together, the Democrats would still bitch about it, and it would essentially be the same argument... exploitation... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 Anyway, 9/11 and terrorism deserve to be emphasized because they are the single most important issue to us. Nothing should be more important than the threat of death. All the terrorists are flooding into Iraq now. As sad as it is to say, the costs of fighting terrorism is still being paid, but it's over there and not here. I honestly do not feel John Kerry makes our country more safe than George W. Bush would. Except it was George W Bush's administration that missed all the suspicious warning signs about the hijackers that led up to 9/11. It's George W Bush's administration that planned to cut the 9/11 commission early and plans to only briefly visit with them. It may be time to rethink your definition of safe. Safe because of what happened leading up to 9/11, or safe because of what started a month afterwards? Because I can tell you that anybody, ANYBODY, in the President's position in October 2001 would realize that people were almost bloodthirsty to see some bombs in the desert and hear of some Arab extremists killed. And sure enough, it made everyone feel "safe" and the President scores popularity points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 5, 2004 Yeah but come on... lets be fair. The Clinton administrations record on fighting terrorism isn't exactly the greatest, although it's not nearly as bad as some republicans would have you believe I completely agree that Bush ignored alot of shit leading up to 9/11, out of ignorance for the most part, but you cant pin it directly on his administration without pointing the finger at the Clinton administration as well afterall, terrorism existed before Bush came into office, and terrorism will exist long after he leaves it in January Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted March 5, 2004 Except it was George W Bush's administration that missed all the suspicious warning signs about the hijackers that led up to 9/11. Hill outlined 12 examples of intelligence information on the possible terrorist use of airplanes as weapons, dating back to 1994. The last example occurred a month before the attacks, when intelligence agencies were told of a possible bin Laden plot to bomb the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, or crash a plane into it. But it contained no specifics pointing to the impending Sept. 11 attacks. You're right, but they weren't signs like the CIA & FBI were being flooded with messages like "Yo, we're going to hijack a couple planes and fly em into buildings. That cool with you?" not to mention that indications, apparently, went all the way back from CLINTON'S FIRST TERM! The failure of pre-9/11 intelligence is way too complex to simply classify as "Bush dismissed them." The same people who claim that Bush didn't act on intelligence that was incomplete or came from dubious sources are the same one that complained that Bush acted on intelligence that was incomplete or came from dubious sources to make his excuse to attack Iraq. That's simplified of course, but you get the idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 Bill Clinton's stump speech was about a good economy, health care, etc. Bush - Evildoers, terrorism, iminent threat, gays are bad, atheists are bad, foreigners are bad etc. One man based his presidency on America and helping its people. The other is completely engossed with alienation and killing and pain. Both had threats to them and their people, one chooses to use its results to his own benefit. Do you honestly believe Clinton could have done ANYTHING about BinLaden during his terms? Bush cant find him now in the midst of a massive manhunt... And for the ten millionth time before I have to respond to any sophomoric 'omglolclintoncigarlibreralblahblahlol'...I am an independently thinking libertarian. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2004 I am an independently thinking libertarian. Sure, you are. And I'm the Queen of Prussia... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted March 5, 2004 USA! USA! USA! Now THAT'S a sig worthy picture. its nice... but the picture of Dale Earnhardt has gotta go Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
