Political Ad Exploiting WTC & 9-11

[Mystic]

TC, I am not going to attack anybody personally. If the ISSUES are on your side it should not be necessary to launch personal attacks on anybody.

I have seen both the Democratic commercials and the Republican commercials. In my view the Republican commercials have been very mild and Bush has not had any negative ads directed towards Kerry until recently. The Democrats are making all kinds of accusations and Kerry refused to apologize for his comments he made towards Republicans when he thought his microphone had been disconnected.

I was not in the World Trade Center when it was attacked and I lost no family members there. But I am an american citizen and I was deeply affected by the attack on the WTC. I see nothing wrong with a picture of the WTC being included in a Bush commercial. The attack on the WTC happened and it is a part of history. Why do the Democrats want for people to not be reminded of the WTC attack? Is it because Kerry is weak on national defense?

 

[TC]

From an Associated Press article today by Will Lester: "Undecided voters, by a 2-1 margin, feel it (use of the images) was inappropriate...Overall, the poll found that 55 percent of those surveyed felt that including the footage of the damage was inappropriate, and about that many found the footage of the firefighters inappropriate." The article does not say what overall percentage thought its use was appropriate, although it did say that 2/3rds of Republicans thought it appropriate.

MYSTIC: "It is possible to debate things here and have differing points of view without attacking each other personally?" Absolutely! I'm all for that, and strive for same. But if a comment such as "Shows your intelligence, I guess" is made, that warrants a response. I've noticed that conservatives on this board get high-and-mighty when their own kind appear to be "personally attacked," yet are strangely silent towards those conservatives' prior comments such as "Shows your intelligence..." Defining "personal attack" here evidently includes a political litmus test -- anything and everything spewed towards supposed "liberals," including personal comments, is always fair game. Fortunately, some of us have rhino hides and just laugh back with facts, quotes, sources, links, etc., leaving the rants for our conservative friends.

[ March 13, 2004, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: TC ]

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Thanks for the information TC, I just don't know what effect, if any, this has on the outcome of the race.

I do feel comfortable in saying that you live in a "blue" state and I live in a "blue" state and that will not change.

I am surprised that 2/3 of Republicans were in favor, I thought it would be more like 95%. But then, I don't know how many actually saw the ad or how the poll question was framed.

[ March 13, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: GROUCHO MARX ]

 

[Bror Jace]

This thread mirrors this issue a great deal. Most people like the ads ... if they have any opinion of them at all. There are a few exceptions and most of them are connected to partisan, leftist groups.

But of course the media is playing up this "controversy" as much as possible. Even if there isn't any issue ... they'll make one.

The Dems and their willing accomplices in the media are trying to get every issue which favors Bush declared too controversial, off limits and/or unimportant.

They want the issues to be:

1) Why did Bush personally lose over 3,000,000 U.S. jobs?

2) Bush's stupidity and why that makes him unworthy of the Presidency.

3) How does Kerry's hair look so nice and thick?

4) Isn't it about time we voted a Vietnam veteran into office ... any Vietnam veteran?

5) Why would anyone not vote for John Kerry?

6) Voting records don't count, it's the irresponsible promises made in campaign ads which should matter most.

7) Why did George W. Bush betray his country by flying F-102 Delta Daggers in the Air National Guard?

8) Everyone should vote for Kerry because Max Cleland lost 3 limbs on the battlefields of Vietnam.

9) Now that Clinton isn't running, character is all important ... and by that we mean someone who was once shot at in Vietnam.

Personally, I want to know how Kerry is going to keep jobs in this country when 57 of the 79 Heinz plants are overseas?? What a hypocrite!!

--- Bror Jace

[ March 14, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Bror Jace ]

 

[TooSlick]

I was wondering ...have all republicans stopped eating ketchup and salsa?

Seriously though, I'd say 90% of voters have made up their minds about this one, so I don't know who these posts are supposed to influence.

The country will shoulder on, regardless of who wins and the world will not come to an end. If Kerry wins, he'll get the same Intel briefs that Bush has been getting and his priorities will change as a result ....

As a former Air Force officer, I think it's good to have a commander in chief who has been in harms way. It keeps us from getting involved in ill advised conflicts overseas and sets the bar much higher for military action.

War is not politics by other means - it's simply insanity by any means ....I suggest reading: "Enemy at the Gates" about the bloodbath battle for Stalingrad during WWII. If you can finish that and still think that war is EVER the answer, you've been asking all the wrong questions ....

I would hope when the history of the 20th Century is written, it will be remembered for something more than a time in which we perfected the art of killing our fellow man in great numbers...I spend four years working on ballistic missile technology and we all knew the idea of "winning" a nuke exchange was madness ....

 

[Last_Z]

TS,
Regarding your post.....all I'm going to say is that you are 100% right about wars being pure insanity.

With that said, the day you lose your freedom, then you'll be wishing you had gone to war and died an ugly death! Living under a regime is like going to h3ll.....it's never ending pain!

Rick