| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/29/2004 10:28:39 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 10:36:57 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 10:40:16 PM · #3 |
| I guess Bush believes in cloning :P |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 10:41:04 PM · #4 |
lets try this slowly.
It
is
an
advertisement.
You think you've never seen an edited image in an advert before ? |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 10:41:15 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
I guess Bush believes in cloning :P |
And human cloning, no less!
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:53:09 PM · #6 |
So does McDonald's! I don't see anyone Burger Bashing though. *looks around* nope, no one B***ing about that.
Edit to include that this is a little bit o humor. Replace "McDonald's" with any resteraunt or fast food chain of your choice.
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 00:09:47. |
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:56:52 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
So does McDonald's! I don't see anyone Burger Bashing though. *looks around* nope, no one B***ing about that. |
Mcdonalds is the scum of the earth............followed by Bush : )
|
|
|
|
10/29/2004 11:59:27 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Damian:
Mcdonalds is the scum of the earth............followed by Bush : ) |
In that order? |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:07:32 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Originally posted by Damian:
Mcdonalds is the scum of the earth............followed by Bush : ) |
In that order? |
Lol, well maybe not, but they are both up there.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:12:06 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:38:28 AM · #11 |
I'd feel better about the president if he had a staff capable of doing a better job with PS than this :)
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:45:27 AM · #12 |
PRESIDENT PULLS 'MULTIPLIED ARMY' TV ADVERT
The Bush campaign was forced to withdraw one of its eve-of-election advertisements yesterday after admitting that it had been doctored, apparently to increase the size of a crowd of soldiers shown listening to the president giving a speech. [10.30.2004]
Interestingly, the same article concludes with this graft:
Another doctored photograph caused controversy earlier in the campaign: a picture circulated- although not by the Bush campaign team - showing Mr Kerry sitting next to Jane Fonda at an anti-Vietnam war rally.
It was found to be composed of two separate shots.
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 01:18:36.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 01:16:41 AM · #13 |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 05:09:19 AM · #14 |
[quote]Bush uses manipulated photo in ad [/quote]
Take a few deep breaths -- it will all be over in a few days. (for a few years anyway).
David
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 09:57:16 AM · #15 |
A vote for Kerry is a lot more than just that. It will cost American taxpayers roughly 8 million a year for as long as either John and/or Tereasa live, to protect their 5 mansions stateside 24 hours a day 365 days a year via the secret service....plus the cost of retrofitting each residence (and several overseas) with up-to-date surveilence equipment. It will put the most anti-2nd amendment presidential candidate ever into the white house, one who has a 100% A+ rating from every gun control group and an F rating from pro-gun rights groups. It will put in charge of the military an on-the-record "anti-war" advocate. There are many many things to consider in this voting cycle. If you agree with Mr. Kerry's positions, then you should support him with your vote. Just don't be fooled by the wolf in sheeps clothing.
As evidence of this dishonesty, I simply ask you to assess the progress if the inner cities. They are typically minority inhabited, represented by minority councilmen/women, congressmen, Senators, and Mayors. They are mostly Democratic in party affiliation and have the most restrictive guns rights laws on the books. The elected managers tout the give money and provide stewardship to the wayward youth philosophy....yet year after year after year these same communities are not getting better. At some point, one has to ask WHY? It is not because of "republican" control. I think it has more to do with a flawed philosophical premise. Regardless of the passion of the voters, Liberal Democrats have done very little to improve the day to day living conditions of those most oppressed. Just rehtoric and money to keep those in poverty, in poverty. Those that succeed out of this enviornment, and there are thousands of examples, do so by following the same principles of success, that apply to all who succeed. Vision, focus, strong work ethic, and sacrifice. This is what Mr. Kerry has not provided while a member of the Senate. 20 years of opportunity to demonstrate that his embraced philosophy is the right formula. Just plain hasn't happened. Can't imagine casting a vote for a proven failure so that he can fail a nation. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 11:38:43 AM · #16 |
Flash, I conclude from your post that
1) Kerry is hugely anti-gun, (even though he is a hunter and will do more to increase available habitat than Bush)
2) The best way to help those inner city minorities escape poverty is to stop giving them services?
Because what they really need is motivation, to succeed like white suburban males regularly demonstrate?
Because they are basically lazy, they become addicted to welfare? They need more "vision, work ethic, and sacrifice"??
The urban poor need more sacrifice? Living in communities with 50% unemployment rates and no businesses, you say they need more "work ethic"??
Do you think a world-view which paints social services as wasteful handouts to lazy stupid blacks just might be perceived as racist?
Of all the ways enormous billions and trillions of dollars are being mispent by our government every year, why is your key voting judgement based on relatively tiny amounts of actual monies spent - welfare is 1% of our budget?
Aren't there much better places to look to recoup your misspent tax dollars?
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 11:40:02. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 11:48:47 AM · #17 |
so how has the Bush economic policies effected working families?
"The Commerce Department data released today on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product — which measures the overall size of the economy — indicate the continuation of a troubling trend for the country’s workers. The new data are for the third quarter of 2004 and show that a steadily dropping share of the nation’s income is going to wages and salaries. At the same time, data through the second quarter show that the share of GDP going to corporate profits has increased substantially."
"These findings are all consistent with the conclusion of an analysis we released in early September. It found that the share of real income growth that has gone to wages and salaries during the current recovery has been smaller than during any other post-World War II recovery period, while the share of real income growth that has gone to corporate profits has been larger than during all other post-World War II recoveries. It also found that the share of national income consisting of wages and salaries is at the lowest level ever recorded, with data available back to 1929;[5] and, while total employee compensation — which includes employers’ pension and health insurance contributions — is not at an all time-low, it is significantly below the average of the last three decades.
Further, these findings are consistent with a better-known pattern of the recent recovery, the slowness of job creation. If there is an absence of significant job growth, it is difficult for the total amount of wages and salaries to grow significantly (the more workers there are, the larger amount of wage and salary income there will be). In contrast, corporate profits have managed to grow faster than they have historically."
From The Center on Budget and Policy Priorites.
I'd say that Bush is working to help the rich get even richer and the poor get even poorer. And he don't give a damn! |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:01:04 PM · #18 |
I already voted (by absentee ballot) last week. I voted for Bush. I hope he wins, so we don't have some wussy president who doesn't want to fight for freedom in office.
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:05:23 PM · #19 |
LOL
I know what you mean, especially given Bush's heroic stature given all the time he spent in Vietnam. (sarcasm)
Originally posted by StevePax:
I already voted (by absentee ballot) last week. I voted for Bush. I hope he wins, so we don't have some wussy president who doesn't want to fight for freedom in office. |
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:09:28 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by StevePax:
I already voted (by absentee ballot) last week. I voted for Bush. I hope he wins, so we don't have some wussy president who doesn't want to fight for freedom in office. |
I thought we already had freedom. Perhaps you meant fighting for our safety?
Because, frankly, I think we are being asked to give up some of our important freedoms, in order to be safe.
Which is why I would vote for a bucket of dingo kidneys over Bush :D |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 12:47:04 PM · #21 |
Al Qaqaa
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 12:54:40. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 01:47:34 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Flash, I conclude from your post that
1) Kerry is hugely anti-gun, (even though he is a hunter and will do more to increase available habitat than Bush)
2) The best way to help those inner city minorities escape poverty is to stop giving them services?
Because what they really need is motivation, to succeed like white suburban males regularly demonstrate?
Because they are basically lazy, they become addicted to welfare? They need more "vision, work ethic, and sacrifice"??
The urban poor need more sacrifice? Living in communities with 50% unemployment rates and no businesses, you say they need more "work ethic"??
Do you think a world-view which paints social services as wasteful handouts to lazy stupid blacks just might be perceived as racist?
Of all the ways enormous billions and trillions of dollars are being mispent by our government every year, why is your key voting judgement based on relatively tiny amounts of actual monies spent - welfare is 1% of our budget?
Aren't there much better places to look to recoup your misspent tax dollars? |
Gingerbaker,
I believe that you may have missed a couple of my points. Regarding the inner-city passage, I was trying to illustrate that the daily operations of neighborhoods/city are run by those elected officials most supporting a liberal democratic philosophy, yet they are not held accountable for the repeated failures year after year. Instead blame is placed elsewhere. Misguided in my judgement and an indication of the real problem.
Regarding my "racism". It is unlikely. Neither my Native American ancestors nor my very poor Irish (celt-mongol/asiatic tribes) heritage puts me at the forefront of that movement. However I do understand how my "tone" of responsibility and accountability could sound that way to some. I have also been very vocal on this site and elsewhere about the crisis in Sudan. Not quite the territory of one who didn't care.
Regarding my concern over tax dollars for inner-city services, please do not believe that I am against helping those in need. I support several agencies/groups such as a local mission, the American Red Cross (emergency fund), various food/clothing/toy drives, local animal shelters, and as a biker, spend literally every summer weekend donating to some charity. I simply believe that if this was the course to success, then our inner-cities should be the most successful operations is america, as they are typically managed by elected representatives who speak as though this is what is required for a positive change to take place. History simply does not bear this out.
Regarding Mr. Kerry's sportsman/gun positions. There is a reason that Handgun Control Inc (Sarah Brady) give him their highest rating. He has voted against more 2nd amendment related legislation than even Senator's Schumer and Feinstein. The Democrats learned a stinging lesson in '94. Leave 2nd amendment issues out of the forefront of campaigns. This strategy was initiated by President Bill, when he acknowledged that house and senate seat losses were due to this single issue. Mr. Kerry is quite vulnerable on this point, and specifically why a local union in michigan is campaingning for Kerry on the theme of "Vote your job so you can afford your guns". Eventhough most members see it as BS.
Regarding Mr. Kerry as our Commander-in-cheif. 1st I respect the Senator's right to protest and vote however he feels is appropriate. But an avowed anti-war protester, a voting record against the '91 Gulf War (even though it met his current criteria of world agreement) and his campaign rehtoric in the past 12 months, I simply do not believe that he will be "hawkish" enough, even if the circumstances required it.
I am fully aware that Senator Kerry could be our next president. I will respect him if he is. I just can't vote for it to happen.
Kindest regards. I look forward to the day when we can meet, share a scene with our camera's, and perhaps down a cold beer.
Flash
(had a sentence in the wrong paragraph)
Message edited by author 2004-10-30 13:51:37. |
|
|
|
10/30/2004 02:36:49 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Flash:
A vote for Kerry is a lot more than just that. It will cost American taxpayers roughly 8 million a year for as long as either John and/or Tereasa live, to protect their 5 mansions stateside 24 hours a day 365 days a year via the secret service....plus the cost of retrofitting each residence (and several overseas) with up-to-date surveilence equipment. |
Wow. There are a lot of factual inaccuracies and misleading statements crammed into this one sentence. A few counterpoints:
1. I'm curious to know where you got the figure of $8 million. I'd like to evaluate it myself.
2. In 1997, legislation limiting the protection of past presidents and their families became effective. Past presidents are now protected for not more than 10 years following the date they leave office. (Source: United States Secret Service). Presidents who served up to or before 1997, however, are still entitled to lifetime protection.
3. The Secret Service is charged with protecting individuals, not with protecting property. There is absolutely no reason to beleive that the Secret Service would need to staff all of the Kerrys' properties 24x7x365.
4. I find it difficult to believe that the Kerrys' residences are not already equipped with proper security equipment. If any modifications to that equipment are necessary, they most likely have already been made. The Secret Service is also charged with protecting major Presidential candidates within 120 days of the general election (Source: United States Secret Service).
Originally posted by Flash:
It will put the most anti-2nd amendment presidential candidate ever into the white house, ... |
Kerry is not anti-gun (he is a gun owner), but supports legislation like background checks, which have been proven to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Between 1994 and 2000, the Brady Bill prevented over 1/2 million felons, fugitives, domestic abusers, and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. In its first 16 months of existence, the Instant Background Check System prevented 179,000 illegal gun sales (out of 10 million background checks) (Source: OnTheIssues). The Kerry administration would seek to pass legislation requiring these background checks for gun show sales as well, legislation introduced by four Senators, including Republican senators Mike DeWine and John McCain. John Kerry also believes the assault weapons ban should have been extended.
It is worth noting that President Bush and Senator Kerry are in agreement on both of the above points. Bush supports both the assault weapons ban and background checks at gun shows. In the October 13 Presidential Debate, Bush stated:
Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them. (emphasis added) (source: Commission on Presidential Debates)
Originally posted by Flash:
one who has a 100% A+ rating from every gun control group and an F rating from pro-gun rights groups. |
Source?
Originally posted by Flash:
It will put in charge of the military an on-the-record "anti-war" advocate. |
I personally would not want to see a "pro-war" advocate in the office of the Commander-in-Chief. War is a terrible thing, and in my personal opinion, should be entered into only when all other reasonable options have been exhausted. My personal opinion is that Kerry is a man who would lead us into war when necessary, and would refrain from doing so when prudent. I respect that your opinion may differ.
Originally posted by Flash:
There are many many things to consider in this voting cycle. If you agree with Mr. Kerry's positions, then you should support him with your vote. Just don't be fooled by the wolf in sheeps clothing. |
I personally believe we've had the "wolf in sheep's clothing" for the last 4 years, but that is a matter of personal opinion, on which it's probably best if we agree to disagree. If you agree with Mr. Bush's positions, you should support him with your vote. Let every vote be counted, and let the best candidate win.
Originally posted by Flash:
As evidence of this dishonesty, I simply ask you to assess the progress if the inner cities. They are typically minority inhabited, represented by minority councilmen/women, congressmen, Senators, and Mayors. They are mostly Democratic in party affiliation and have the most restrictive guns rights laws on the books. The elected managers tout the give money and provide stewardship to the wayward youth philosophy....yet year after year after year these same communities are not getting better. At some point, one has to ask WHY? It is not because of "republican" control. I think it has more to do with a flawed philosophical premise. Regardless of the passion of the voters, Liberal Democrats have done very little to improve the day to day living conditions of those most oppressed. Just rehtoric and money to keep those in poverty, in poverty. Those that succeed out of this enviornment, and there are thousands of examples, do so by following the same principles of success, that apply to all who succeed. Vision, focus, strong work ethic, and sacrifice. This is what Mr. Kerry has not provided while a member of the Senate. 20 years of opportunity to demonstrate that his embraced philosophy is the right formula. Just plain hasn't happened. |
Sure it has. The trouble is, investments in education, for example, take decades to reap rewards. Investments also require that funds are available to invest, and poor cities simply do not have the tax base required to make those investments possible. For this reason, the lack of cities' abilities to lift themselves up by the bootstraps is not a valid indicator of the potential for success from these programs. In my opinion, state and federal support of programs that help people help themselves is the best hope for improving our poorest cities.
Originally posted by Flash:
Can't imagine casting a vote for a proven failure so that he can fail a nation. |
I agree. My personal opinion, though, is that Bush is the proven failure. I respect your right to disagree with that assessment.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 02:50:00 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Flash, I conclude from your post that
1) Kerry is hugely anti-gun, (even though he is a hunter and will do more to increase available habitat than Bush)
2) The best way to help those inner city minorities escape poverty is to stop giving them services?
Because what they really need is motivation, to succeed like white suburban males regularly demonstrate?
Because they are basically lazy, they become addicted to welfare? They need more "vision, work ethic, and sacrifice"??
The urban poor need more sacrifice? Living in communities with 50% unemployment rates and no businesses, you say they need more "work ethic"??
Do you think a world-view which paints social services as wasteful handouts to lazy stupid blacks just might be perceived as racist?
Of all the ways enormous billions and trillions of dollars are being mispent by our government every year, why is your key voting judgement based on relatively tiny amounts of actual monies spent - welfare is 1% of our budget?
Aren't there much better places to look to recoup your misspent tax dollars? |
gingerbaker,
I do not see where Flash draws any racial comparisons in his post. If your intention is to put words in Flash's mouth and accuse him of racism, that is seriously out of line. If I am misreading your post, then I apologize.
Could you please clarify this post?
Thanks,
Terry
|
|
|
|
10/30/2004 04:43:19 PM · #25 |
Clubjuggle
First, there is an enormous difference between calling someone a "racist" and saying that perhaps their statements could be perceived ( and, frankly, are perceived by me) as being affected by racism.
All or nearly all of us have racism-related prejudices. I know I do. The people who say they do not are either Saints, from outer space, or lead unexamined lives.
The question is whether we can recognize our inevitable prejudices and then care to examine ourselves about if we feel we can do better, and how to accomplish that.
Read Flash's post carefully. What I see him say is that the money spent by liberals on inner city minorities is money wasted, because rather than help the community or individuals, it has "kept" them in poverty.
This is, he says, because these minorities - which are mostly black - do not have enough "work ethic" or "vision" or "sacrifice".
I am sorry, but I don't see how these conclusions can be generated without the corresponding generalities being asserted: that inner-city blacks are inherently impervious to social benefits because they are too lazy to convert them into a work ethic, and too stupid to convert them to a positive vision.
Either that, or the inner-city program workers, also minority - which means black - have the same deficiencies.
Not only does Flash's argument hold that these well-meaning programs have failed, because he sees no improvement in the inner cities ( which to me raises the question, " Ah, but how much worse would it be *without* the programs" ), but the argument goes further, by alleging that money spent to improve the lives of inner-city minorities somehow "keeps" the poor in poverty.
Now, how does giving the poor money "keep" them in poverty? Would giving middle-class neighborhoods or individuals monies cause a down-ward spiral into poverty?
I say, of course not. And that, IMO, the only rationale for such a view has, at its basis, the inherently racist view that blacks are lazy = have no work ethic, so that given the choice between working or not, MOST choose not.
And the same goes for the "vision" and "sacrifice" viewpoints.
I find this argument truly upsetting, because it is a classic version of the "blame the victim" mindset, which has been used for centuries to justify denying lower classes equal opportunity.
The poor are poor because of a lack of virtue, say the rich, implying their own virtue and right to rule.
This, I think, is the essence of racism - the natural inclination of one person to want to feel superior to another and to rationalize it with a value system.
And this is indeed what I see in the argument of which Flash seems to be a proponent.
I do not mean to imply that Flash is a bad person, or indeed, a racist. After reading his replies to my admittedly harshly-worded post, he seems a fine person indeed.
Nevertheless, I think way he has framed the issue is not new, has been used for years, and I can assure you I am only the latest of a very long line of commentators to point out the inherent racism in the framing of the issue.
For my harshness, and for any discomfort, or perceived insult, Flash, I apologize.
|
|
