Bush Television Ads

[quote name='Atreadon']Nader may end up ruining it again for the democrats. I don't understand the people that will vote for him...they must be either too dense to realize or too idealistic to care that Nader can't win, and that his entering the race only makes it more likely that the lesser-of-two-evils is going to lose.

[/quote]

Attitudes like that arethe reason people are afraid to vote for the third party/independent candidates they really want to :whistle2:(

Personally, I refuse to be intimidated by fear of what other people may or may not do.

My vote is mine and mine alone and thus I vote for exactly who I want regardless of who everyone else's voting for.

so far, it looks like I'll be voting for Nader.......

...... unless somebody better comes along
 
[quote name='"speedracer"'][quote name='paz9x']
*I know its easy to forget what happened to our country overnight a couple septembers ago.[/quote]

It's easy to forget 9/11? W.T.F.?!?!

That was sarcasm buckaroo.
I think a lot of this garbage spewing abotu all the problem our president has"created" have been a direct result of those events.

it seems people forget the magnitude of that event and the waves of effects that followed it.
 
[quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='defender']As for Bush being an average joe..thats why I think he was elected too because Gore seemed like a stiff martian. Charisma gets people elected nowadays and not agendas. I think it has been this way for a while and even more so after Reagan but I think it all started with Kennedy.
[/quote]

Well actually, Gore won the majority of the votes, and Bush was appointed president by the US supreme court (the only president to have done so). This all boils down to a major flaw in the way that presidents are elected, namely the electoral college. Funnily enough, the state that all the fuss was about was Florida, the same state in which Bush's brother was govenor. Yet another coincident eh?

I sadly do agree with the comment on charisma though. It's really too bad that the most important thing to most average voters is the personality of the candidate.[/quote]



You can't honestly tell me you're going to bring this up. No offense but this arguement has become that of a last resort for liberals now. Losing an arguement about Bush as president? Throw out the Supreme Court card. It really gets old.

I seem to remember a Liberal group/website that was started a little while ago that was called Moveon.org. For those of you who don't know what they were started for was as a response to the impeachment trials and basically their message was move on from this and let's get back to running the country. I just get tired of people dragging up old stuff that really isn't important anymore or frankly at the time.

There is a reason we have an electoral college. The reason why is because if we didn't then the only places that candidates would be campaigning at would be the big population centers and states like North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, etc. wouldn't get any attention from the presidential candidates and their potential re-election campaign. The Electoral College basically forces a candidate to appeal to the general nationwide public not just major population centers. Its all a part of the game that is politics.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='evilmax17'][quote name='defender']As for Bush being an average joe..thats why I think he was elected too because Gore seemed like a stiff martian. Charisma gets people elected nowadays and not agendas. I think it has been this way for a while and even more so after Reagan but I think it all started with Kennedy.
[/quote]

Well actually, Gore won the majority of the votes, and Bush was appointed president by the US supreme court (the only president to have done so). This all boils down to a major flaw in the way that presidents are elected, namely the electoral college. Funnily enough, the state that all the fuss was about was Florida, the same state in which Bush's brother was govenor. Yet another coincident eh?

I sadly do agree with the comment on charisma though. It's really too bad that the most important thing to most average voters is the personality of the candidate.[/quote]



You can't honestly tell me you're going to bring this up. No offense but this arguement has become that of a last resort for liberals now. Losing an arguement about Bush as president? Throw out the Supreme Court card. It really gets old.

I seem to remember a Liberal group/website that was started a little while ago that was called Moveon.org. For those of you who don't know what they were started for was as a response to the impeachment trials and basically their message was move on from this and let's get back to running the country. I just get tired of people dragging up old stuff that really isn't important anymore or frankly at the time.

There is a reason we have an electoral college. The reason why is because if we didn't then the only places that candidates would be campaigning at would be the big population centers and states like North Dakota, Alaska, Wyoming, etc. wouldn't get any attention from the presidential candidates and their potential re-election campaign. The Electoral College basically forces a candidate to appeal to the general nationwide public not just major population centers. Its all a part of the game that is politics.[/quote]

Kudos to RedvsBlue for actually thinking about why the founders decided on the electoral college system. You know, it does serve a purpose, people. If states like California, New York, and Florida ruled supreme over all the others, the laws and lawmakers would be completely ignorant of Montana and Wyoming's needs. Say what you want, but George Bush won the election fair and square under the constitution.

Now, onto Dubya, himself. I personally don't have much of a problem with his ads, but I can't believe his campaigners are so incredibly stupid that they would do such a thing. They should have known that the opposition would be fierce (and probably legitimate). I could have made a better campaign ad than that one. Up until about a year ago, I supported Bush, but I'm going with Kerry this time around. Anyone who thinks Bush has a good shot is delirious.
 
RedVsBlue- did you not see what I quoted? I was merely correcting something that somebody else had stated. I wasn't "dragging things up" or anything even close to that, I was responding to a specific quote.

Actually, the electoral college is somewhat outdated. Do a little research. A big factor in the founding of this system was directly related to the three-fifths compromise, in order to appease the southern states. At the time, it was necessary. Today, it is not. Where else have you heard of a contest in which a person who gets the most votes ends up being the loser? Our system makes that possible.

Also, since when were "the liberals" losing a battle about Bush as president? You know what REALLY gets old? When FACT after FACT after FACT is presented to conservatives about Bush, and they just brush it off as partisan politics. I swear to god, if Bush was caught murdering somebody, the republicans would just say "Oh those crazy liberals. This is all just left-wing mud slinging."

So what about the facts? Do you really believe that the lack of WMDs or evidence of Iraq as a threat was really the result of "faulty inteligence"? That the highest branch in charge of intelligence couldn't see things that many "average joes" had seen before the war even began? You don't think political/family bias played into the iraq war? Stop being nieve!
 
[quote name='evilmax17']

Also, since when were "the liberals" losing a battle about Bush as president? You know what REALLY gets old? When FACT after FACT after FACT is presented to conservatives about Bush, and they just brush it off as partisan politics. I swear to god, if Bush was caught murdering somebody, the republicans would just say "Oh those crazy liberals. This is all just left-wing mud slinging."
[/quote]


Can you honestly tell me that its any different when there is a Liberal president? The are always people out there that are hard core for their candidate. Speaking of which, I'm not always 100% pro Bush myself.
 
Also, since when were "the liberals" losing a battle about Bush as president? You know what REALLY gets old? When FACT after FACT after FACT is presented to conservatives about Bush, and they just brush it off as partisan politics. I swear to god, if Bush was caught murdering somebody, the republicans would just say "Oh those crazy liberals. This is all just left-wing mud slinging."

So what about the facts? Do you really believe that the lack of WMDs or evidence of Iraq as a threat was really the result of "faulty inteligence"? That the highest branch in charge of intelligence couldn't see things that many "average joes" had seen before the war even began? You don't think political/family bias played into the iraq war? Stop being nieve!
Click to expand...

lol...

so what FACTS do you have to back up this conspiracy theory of yours! FACTS FACTS FACTS...as a Republican I must have overlooked them in your statement.

lol...

U Got Pwnd
 
[quote name='evilmax17']Actually, the electoral college is somewhat outdated. Do a little research. A big factor in the founding of this system was directly related to the three-fifths compromise, in order to appease the southern states. At the time, it was necessary. Today, it is not. Where else have you heard of a contest in which a person who gets the most votes ends up being the loser? Our system makes that possible.[/quote]

Madison, Jefferson, and the rest of the founders just knew that information didn't travel well, and people could be easily manipulated, and they wanted to give citizens of small states more power than they would otherwise have. It was a tool to keep the small states from being oppressed. It is still important because candidates have to compete in all areas.

Consider an NFL analogy: Direct election by popular vote would be like abolishing the super bowl. Instead, all of the points earned in the season would be tallied up and the team with the most points would be the champions. That wouldn't work because the "winning" team might be good only at running the score up against pathetic teams, but would lose when battling another similar team.

Basically, if you look at the blue/red map county-by-county rather than state-by-state, you'll see why Al Gore won the popular vote. NY state is mostly bush, except for areas like NYC, where Gore won by a landslide. Or in PA, where Gore won Philly and Pittsburgh, but lost almost everywhere else. You can't have a president who everyone in NYC and LA loves, but doesn't do much for people in upstate NY or rural PA.

[quote name='evilmax17']So what about the facts? Do you really believe that the lack of WMDs or evidence of Iraq as a threat was really the result of "faulty inteligence"? That the highest branch in charge of intelligence couldn't see things that many "average joes" had seen before the war even began? You don't think political/family bias played into the iraq war? Stop being nieve![/quote]

If you're taking that stance, I challenge you to explain to me why Bill Clinton had the exact same position in 1999 as Bush does now. He was very concerned with getting rid of Saddam's supposed WMDs, and even supported Bush for going into Iraq in 2003! If it wasn't faulty intelligence, why did Clinton react the same way as Bush???
 
Looks like Stern will likely be kicked off the air this week: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/03/06/howard.stern.ap/index.html

Although you could say "well, he sucks anyway", stern's comment about "There's a cultural war going on. The religious right is winning. We're losing" is dead on. I predict that others will follow shortly, especially if he's re-elected. MTV. Will & Grace. Bill O'Reilley for being anti-bush lately. Just wait and see.
 
Will & Grace should be gone just because it's a horrible, horrible show. When I become emperor, you'll see a lot more shows gone.

Wait, did I just reveal part of my diabolical plans?
 
E-Z-B, I think you have your tinfoil hat on a bit tight. Arguing the merits of a "culture war" is one thing, you went a tad far.

minx, I challenge you to name a single foreign policy of Nader's. Without looking it up. To up the difficulty infinitely, make it a social issue.

You're damn right you can't. Don't worry. Neither can most of his campaign staff, or the Green party who dropped him because they felt they were being used by him. But I'm sure you already knew that, right?

Personally, I refuse to be intimidated by fear of what other people may or may not do.
Click to expand...

This isn't being brave, voting for Nader. You don't even know his positions. You're a rebel without a brain, crucifying your vote. Don't let us stop you, and if you need help, let me know. I'm a huge Darwin fan myself.

I completely and absolutely disagree with the electoral college. Not only does it weigh the election in favor of smaller states by making their votes count more than large states, but the initial reasoning behind it is dead as well. Back in the day, it made sense because without the politician actually showing up, there was virtually nothing a normal citizen would know about the candidates. That couldn't be more wrong today. You see them every single hour on news networks.

You think anyone really gives a damn about Iowa? Is the democratic process really helped because some joe nobody from some nobody state get their breakfasts served to them by a candidate? Meh.

The electoral college is one of the most corrupting factors in politics today. Swing states get hooked up with pork like a mofo. Buying of votes, plain and simple.

It's affirmative action in favor of little states and the lucky few "swing" states. This is America. One vote should equal one vote. PERIOD. Are you proponents of the college also supporting affirmative action? Hell no you aren't.

On top of it, the voters in the big states are completely robbed, particularly California and New York. No candidates ever do anything in either state since they're both "owned" by Democrats. Real fair. New Hampshire gets 25 visits, the two biggest states in the union are lucky to pull 4 visits between em. Real fair.

Regardless of that ignorant crap that went down in Florida, a MILLION more people voted for the Democrat than the Republican, and the Republican won. This is a democratic heresy. We should all be outraged. You can spin it any way you want, but the man with more votes lost, and every one of us should be mad as hell.

Someone earlier in the thread pointed out that their vote didn't matter. Every single American should be upset about it. The theory behind the college is dead, and what it leaves in its wake is anything but direct democracy. It's voting socialism.
 
Political arguments in america...

Liberals are stupid.
Uh uh...conservatives are stupid.
No you are.
No you are...

But Your president dodged the draft
no yours did

Yours did pot
So yours did coke

Yours started a war we have no business in
No yours did.

etc....etc...etc...
 
[quote name='speedracer']E-Z-B, I think you have your tinfoil hat on a bit tight. Arguing the merits of a "culture war" is one thing, you went a tad far.[/quote]

Speedracer, I don't think you got my point. Sorry if the inference from my statement was too complex to understand. The point was that should the right wing continue to have its way, censorship will become more and more common, as already apparent with Howard Stern, ER, the 10 second or so delay on the oscars, the anti-bush ads on the superbowl, and the current attemp from the republicans to ban all television ads from moveon.org.
 
Sorry if the inference from my statement was too complex to understand.
Click to expand...

lol.

you tell em dude. screw the bourgeois fascists that have an expectation of decency from media coming across public airwaves.

i think you should open a thread specifically so you can opine ad infinitum ad nauseum. don't let the man, much less a bourgeois pig like myself, hold you down. go get a soapbox (your own thread) and punk me.

Remember to show a timeline of cultural changes on television in this country to better back yourself up. You know, contrast how it was all groovy titties and wide open sex on the tube in the 50's and how the man has put the clamp down today. That should be a real easy one.
 
Speedracer... E-Z-B wasn't talking about censorship throughout the history of TV. He's talking about what Bush and the Republicans are censoring NOW, in the name of decency. Groovy '50s titties and such are irrelevant. I thought you were somewhat credible before you made that statement. Even though your position is different, you are still the '*insert affiliation but I'm assuming liberal* without a brain' compared to all the other posters you criticize on this thread. i agree that the voting system has to be changed but its not if there are people blindly sounding off and flaming everyone else thinking you have some deeper insight than everyone else.

I'm sorry, but who does Bush really think hes fooling saying now its alright to exploit 9-11 images when hes up for reelection, fully retracting his previous view of it? I'm not fully agreeing with EZB, as those isolated incidents aren't endemic of the Republican party, but I believe those are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. I am scared what is to come in the name of the Patriot Act, the Freedom Act whatever Act is to come, that we will self-censor ourselves in the name of freedom, to not risk looking Un-American. Am I paranoid, maybe. But people defending little things like that are what allows the government to take bigger steps that will eventually lead to such a future.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Remember to show a timeline of cultural changes on television in this country to better back yourself up. You know, contrast how it was all groovy titties and wide open sex on the tube in the 50's and how the man has put the clamp down today. That should be a real easy one.[/quote]

Again, speedracer, you miss my point, misread my statements, and continue to use your own condescending tone toward everyone else who disagrees with you. The "cultural war" quote wasn't even mine. I never said it. I never tried to defend it. It was a quote from Stern that I agree with. My point is that censorship and the right to free speech wil get even worse. So here's my evidence: the Howard Stern show is the same today as it was 20 years ago. There's no difference between now and when Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton were in office. But it's getting banned now. Could it be because he's been anti-bush? You be the judge. And save your condescending attitude next time.
 
[quote name='magilacudy']Speedracer... E-Z-B wasn't talking about censorship throughout the history of TV. He's talking about what Bush and the Republicans are censoring NOW, in the name of decency. Groovy '50s titties and such are irrelevant. I thought you were somewhat credible before you made that statement. Even though your position is different, you are still the '*insert affiliation but I'm assuming liberal* without a brain' compared to all the other posters you criticize on this thread. i agree that the voting system has to be changed but its not if there are people blindly sounding off and flaming everyone else thinking you have some deeper insight than everyone else.

I'm sorry, but who does Bush really think hes fooling saying now its alright to exploit 9-11 images when hes up for reelection, fully retracting his previous view of it? I'm not fully agreeing with EZB, as those isolated incidents aren't endemic of the Republican party, but I believe those are just the tip of the iceberg so to speak. I am scared what is to come in the name of the Patriot Act, the Freedom Act whatever Act is to come, that we will self-censor ourselves in the name of freedom, to not risk looking Un-American. Am I paranoid, maybe. But people defending little things like that are what allows the government to take bigger steps that will eventually lead to such a future.[/quote]

Well spoken.
 
I just don't get it.

He abuses the country! Its like fucking 1984!

He makes a huge budget cut for the schools, and says he is helping them. The people beleive him.

He makes huge tax cuts only for rich people, and says that it helps poor people. The people beleive him.

There is a difference between patriotic and being so fucking loyal to the president that you let the bastard destroy the environment, the ecomomy, and any chance of world peace.
 
[quote name='magilacudy']Speedracer... E-Z-B wasn't talking about censorship throughout the history of TV. He's talking about what Bush and the Republicans are censoring NOW, in the name of decency. Groovy '50s titties and such are irrelevant. I thought you were somewhat credible before you made that statement. [/quote]

Really? Is it at ANY time proper to speak about a change without first referencing and understanding what was the past? If anything but to better understand the present? Must this always be spelled out? Would it be censorship if (insert personal favorite politician) was doing it? Maybe, but you'd actually sit down and educate yourself on the topic before the fire-and-brimstone holier-than-thou schpiel no wants to hear anyway. How do you honestly expect people to take you seriously if everyone here knows that you don't know anything about the subject at hand?

But speedracer, that's not the point. The point is that Bush is a civil rights killer. No shit. But saying "Bush is a civil rights killer" gets nothing accomplished. Saying something like:
----------------
Obviously, so-called "decency" laws have not been enforced over the last twenty years by an increasing timid Federal Communcations Commission. Virtually every major challenge posed by the FCC has been smashed, both in the courts of law and the court of public opinion. Once a decade or so, someone with far too much time on their hands will push the FCC's hand, and the corresponding smackdown in courts follow. Isn't it about time we took this debate to the people? Isn't it about time we removed politics from the equation and actually looked at the subject at hand? Is TV an art form, and can art truly be "indecent"? I would surmise that when cooler heads prevail (as they invariably do), a answer will be plain, in keeping with the First Amendment. Until then, we should appraise any attempt at political opportunism with nothing less than scorn and bestow distrust on those that would so richly deserve it. In this case, the administration, wholly on this censorship bandwagon, has earned nothing less. Framed against the myriad of lite-authoritative (some would argue fascist) policies characterizing the presidency of Mr. Bush, it becomes clear that anyone choosing rights, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should search for their candidate elsewhere.

And since everyone's a good patriot, I would assume that means everyone will be looking elsewhere.
---------------------

Took me a whopping 10 mins to churn out.

Even though your position is different, you are still the '*insert affiliation but I'm assuming liberal* without a brain' compared to all the other posters you criticize on this thread.
Click to expand...

:roll:

This is what turns people off, this mindless regurgitation of the obvious. Tell em something they haven't heard. Tell em something they didn't read on the little ticker as it went by on Fox or CNN. Anyone can have a topical poo-flinging contest, but what gets done?

Make a point. Be different.
 
Yes, it would be censorship if *favorite politician* did it. I don't have any favorite politician, but I do know what censorship is. Is it proper to talk about change without first referencing the past? Well, how far back do you want to go, when TV was first invented? Or how about when art itself was invented. Maybe we can get some of Caesar's viewpoints, or President of Cave 47 Oog's censorship of cavewomen. I don't really see what your point is, as you keep flipping other people's arguments around so they are barely recognizable. From EZB's quote it seems like he's talking about recent history, he even reiterates that.

...
Obviously, so-called "decency" laws have not been enforced over the last twenty years by an increasing timid Federal Communcations Commission. Virtually every major challenge posed by the FCC has been smashed, both in the courts of law and the court of public opinion. Once a decade or so, someone with far too much time on their hands will push the FCC's hand, and the corresponding smackdown in courts follow. Isn't it about time we took this debate to the people? Isn't it about time we removed politics from the equation and actually looked at the subject at hand? Is TV an art form, and can art truly be "indecent"? I would surmise that when cooler heads prevail (as they invariably do), a answer will be plain, in keeping with the First Amendment. Until then, we should appraise any attempt at political opportunism with nothing less than scorn and bestow distrust on those that would so richly deserve it. In this case, the administration, wholly on this censorship bandwagon, has earned nothing less. Framed against the myriad of lite-authoritative (some would argue fascist) policies characterizing the presidency of Mr. Bush, it becomes clear that anyone choosing rights, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should search for their candidate elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I believe that was what what EZB said, only not in as many words. You use big words, wow!, but hey you're saying the same thing as everyone else.

CENSORSHIP=GREY AREA. Read the other thread about censoring games.

BUSH ADMIN="lite-authoritative (some would argue fascist) policies". Both of those viewpoints have been already stated ad infinitum, only you have added insults to both sides.

"Isn't it about time we removed politics from the equation and actually looked at the subject at hand? "

Then get on your own soapbox and opine endlessly.

And to top it all off, who are you to tell anyone to educate themselves when you aren't putting facts down yourself. The only sources you provide are slander and knocks against other people's intelligence. Hey, I can stoop down to your level too.

Quote from me:
you are still the '*insert affiliation but I'm assuming liberal* without a brain'
Click to expand...

And you said in response:

This is what turns people off, this mindless regurgitation of the obvious.
Click to expand...

Your words speak for themselves.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Bush is a civil rights killer. No shit. But saying "Bush is a civil rights killer" gets nothing accomplished. Saying something like:
----------------
Obviously, so-called "decency" laws blah blah blah langauge from dictionary.com yadda yadda yadda
---------------------

Took me a whopping 10 mins to churn out.
:roll:.[/quote]

Again, the condescending attitude used to win an argument. For that, you get this:
positive14.jpg

(credit to WSB)
 
Some of you are so strongly outspoken that you'll do anything in order to get your opinion across, level-head intact or not. Apparently I'm not reiterating the obvious because this is somewhat out of control. Flaming people isn't the answer, it's the problem, which starts this all over again in another thread, on a different subject, and the cycle is repeatedly abused until one's feelings gets considerably hurt or all the people end up DEAD.

Ok, so such previous statement isn't true. Point is, don't be liberally bashing other persons because such notion doesn't meet your recognized standards of decency on your own accord.

Took a whopping 1:30 to type out. :roll:
 
Hehe. I should've timed myself. It took a while though 5+ minutes because of all the copying and pasting, and I had to edit it cuz I forgot to delete some parts :?
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I just don't get it.

He abuses the country! Its like fucking 1984!

He makes a huge budget cut for the schools, and says he is helping them. The people beleive him.

He makes huge tax cuts only for rich people, and says that it helps poor people. The people beleive him.

There is a difference between patriotic and being so fucking loyal to the president that you let the bastard destroy the environment, the ecomomy, and any chance of world peace.[/quote]

Well spoken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top