Should we all pretend that it didn't happend then?
9-11 Images for Campaign Ads
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
It seems to me that using that event to sel and candidate is no different than if it was used to sell life insurance or any other product.
It shouldn't be used as a promotional tool of any sort.
It shouldn't be used as a promotional tool of any sort.
No, simply stop trying to score political points from it.
Then there should be no critizism over the issue then. No debate neither pro nor con. No reflecting over the singular defining event that has brought the US to where it is today.
Nope, none.
No criticism of what exactly? Anything that has happened since 9/11?
Or actions pertaining to seeking to find the causes and stop it happening again?
Or invasion of Iraq?
What is the issue N8?
Applying your logic, no debate on any 9-11 related issues.
That's a strange application of logic. You have gone from political gain to debate.
Also;
Terrorism stands on it's own as a topic.
The invasion of Iraq is not a 9-11 related issue.
These can be discussed without trying to make political gain from 9-11.
N8 and anyone who thinks like him... just because some people feel that the 9/11 images should not be exploited for obvious politcal gain by ANYONE does NOT mean the topic is taboo... kindly remove your head from your anus, now. Please post responsibly, it has been our pleasure to flame you.
Bush had to know that this would piss alot of people off. So he is most likely going for the sensationalist press coverage, under the assumption that no publicity is bad publicity. Which in my opinion is no way to run a campaign.
If he actually thought this would be cool with everyone, then quite simply he is an idiot.
If he actually thought this would be cool with everyone, then quite simply he is an idiot.
Been flamed by better...
Not surprising...Originally posted by N8
Been flamed by better...
I think it is hilarious that people are up in arms about a few images of that day. I beleive most people are angry 'cuase a few people (direct victems) are not happy.... I am all for supporting the victems families but they are off on this, and I am not the only one who can see it.
These events used to slam Bush for a Dem's political gain......The Dem's aren't doing that? You are
or blind. 
Basically it is Con-Bush camp looking to slap anything he does. Grow up. The use of the images was not done disgracefully. I can't believe you people are that blinded. It is simply amazing.....
If anyone needs to come up for air it is you
I think I slowed the thread down because I offered some balance to this Flame Bush tag team event being created. But by all means flame away.
It isn't cool for anyone to do that not just Dubya. That event shouldn't be used as a promotional tool for anything.
have you viewed the ads?
(http://www.georgebush.com/tvads/)
i have, and for the life of me cannot figure out what part is sensationalist. I found it to be rather tasteful as it relates to the most important plank of the candidate's campaign: nat'l sec
also, if using 9/11 is inappropriate/tasteless, then he can't talk about economic issues, or other corollaries of 9/11.
It depends if you are discussing a point of principle or this particular instance.Originally posted by RhinofromWA
These events used to slam Bush for a Dem's political gain......The Dem's aren't doing that? You are
Basically it is Con-Bush camp looking to slap anything he does. Grow up. The use of the images was not done disgracefully. I can't believe you people are that blinded. It is simply amazing.....
On the principle I think no one should try and use such a thing politically.
On this case, (having just watched the videos without sound) it seemed fairly innocuous but where would you draw the line?
These ads are about one thing and one thing only... getting Americans to focus on anything but the economy (trashed dollar, widening trade gaps, deficit spending that is apparently out of control, employment) or health care. Both of which are the two things that the majority of Americans are reporting as the two most important issues to them. Both of which they seem powerless to provide any direction.
Is it that Bush is nothing more than a one trick pony? If he can't bomb it, he can't deal with it.
As for remembering what happened on 9-11, I don't think that we need political ads reminding us about them to keep us from forgetting. So please don't act like these ads are the only thing that is going to keep us from forgetting what happened.
Is it that Bush is nothing more than a one trick pony? If he can't bomb it, he can't deal with it.
As for remembering what happened on 9-11, I don't think that we need political ads reminding us about them to keep us from forgetting. So please don't act like these ads are the only thing that is going to keep us from forgetting what happened.
Dragging body parts out....people jumping for 40 stories up and hitting the ground...The bloodied mangled faces pulled fom the rubble....
You can't ingnore 9-11 and the Dem's using it to slam the president for their own political gain isn't any different that Bush using it in his add.
It is a part of his term and is brought up by both sides when discussing his term. Really it is an oversensitive group getting angry....at a tastefully done (regarding 9-11) commercial. That is unless someone is extreem enough to never want the pictures brought up at all. That is something of a personal nature and not something to persuade people from talking about it or showing it on TV.
I'll delete the emotive part of your post...
Terrorism per se is one thing and there must a be a policy and debate on it. Invoking the victims of 9-11 for political gain is (IMO) immoral.
And that applies to both parties.
Nice redirection....the president is not the one telling people he shouldn't use the material....other people are trying to sensor it.
I can only imagine this is not the only commercial in the next yearwe will see. One trick pony? Possibly. But probably unlikely. It is a long run to the polls in Nov and please correct me if I am wrong....this is his first campaign commercial. Not exactly one trick pony worthy....yet.
9-11 is part of what is our country now. The coverage wasn't done dissrespectfully, and it is his first commercial. WTF! Issue coverage is still to happen. For crying out loud......
Hold on! You asked what would be crossing the line.
Nice.
Rhino
*edit* but yes I can see that as an opinion. It jsut doesn't pertain to this commercial we are discussing.
Ah, OK. Sorry, my bad.
Shouldn't have deleted it - I missed the reference. Apologies.
It isn't that the ads themselves are done badly or in a distasteful manner, it is the fact that nobody should use the murder of 3000+ people as a promotional tool.
Especially when his idea of maiking America safer includes invading a country who posed very little (if any) danger to the US and killing thousands of innocent people.
Well, I've not heard the sound but the pictures were pretty mild, not really a problem but possible thin end of the wedge thingy?
Sounds good, I just think this is a mound hill (some victims families finding it offensive) being turned into a Mountain (The people jumping in line with them to denounce it)
When this really isn't worthy of that level of attack. It just wasn't done in a distastefully(subjective I know) way.
It could have been, but it wasn't.
Right messege....wrong application.
$tinkle posted a link to the script of the comercials. That may help. (a few above here)
Just typical political 30 sec spot. Especially for an initial ad. Very broad.
Exactly! The ads are fine (IMO), it's the fact that their being used the way they are.
And, as Fluff's been saying... NEITHER PARTY SHOULD DO IT. If and when the Dems do it, they need to be slammed too!
Don't be a partisan tool... vote for the best candidate.
That's ok, I'm not a democrat.
I googled "Iraqi civilian death toll" and went through a bunch of the links. Most of them seem to think the count was between 3000 and 10,000. In the past I have seen credible sources (AP, reuters) report it in that range also, but I don't think anyone will ever come up with an exact figure.
ok, i should have qualified my question with "by US forces". In which case, i believe that number is in the hundreds. If that number is closer to what you claim, there needs to be hell to pay. plain & simple.Originally posted by Tenchiro
That's ok, I'm not a democrat.
I googled "Iraqi civilian death toll" and went through a bunch of the links. Most of them seem to think the count was between 3000 and 10,000. In the past I have seen credible sources (AP, reuters) report it in that range also, but I don't think anyone will ever come up with an exact figure.
i'm sure there are a few mass graves & insurgent terrorists to account for quite a few.
Every one has a tragedy. Infact this tragedy was shared by more than (whoever it was)
So it is not somthing that gives them a final say.
Here is probably the most credible source, ABC and the AP.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s877824.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s877824.htm
Partisan. Hardly. Kerry will get his due soon enough.
Of course I've seen the ads, I was the one that started the stupid thread. Watched 'em, read the text and then watched 'em again. And just again for your benefit.
Ask 100 people what they remember from the ads... the 9-11 images. He could have said in the voiceover "I have a big d!ck." and most folks wouldn't even notice. The phrase a picture is worth a 1000 words is more than appropriate.
And Rhino, I never said he shouldn't use it. My point is why he is using it. As for it being the first of many ads, watch what the constant theme of them is. Terrorism is going to have to be a central theme as it is the one aspect of his presidency that can be considered a success. But then again, it wouldn't have taken a brain surgeon to respond to such a horrific act. Very few even here questioned why Afghanistan was such an immediate target.
One trick pony doesn't refer to his reelection campaign, it refers to his presidency so far. If he can't bomb it, he can't deal with it.
Well if witnesses said some of them were caused by Iraqi forces, then that goes to show that some were also cause by Coalition forces. Granted we will never know at what ratio, but if we hadn't invaded would they have died at all?
For example, if I were to pull a gun out in a crowded area and that action led to a shootout where bystanders were killed. Even if I personally did not hurt anyone, I would still be held responsible for their deaths, and charged with murder. No matter if I felt I was justified in my actions.
For example, if I were to pull a gun out in a crowded area and that action led to a shootout where bystanders were killed. Even if I personally did not hurt anyone, I would still be held responsible for their deaths, and charged with murder. No matter if I felt I was justified in my actions.
Which country encouraged a lot of those people in those mass graves to revolt and then refused to support them?