Forum Discussion

The entire Dem ad was disgraceful. Particularly the brief part that implied that the Republicans are repsonsible for hurricanes. Apparently, despite Democrat sneers, the Republican Party IS the party of God... at least the party of the acts of God.

I think it was the usage of the coffins, not who was in them. In the Bush ad, the half second with the coffin helped to illustrate the trying times the country went through at the start of the presidency and then how the country rose above it. Dind't say anything about Dems or Republicans or even Bush. Contrast that to the Dem ad, which basically showed coffins to raise money, as it overtly blamed the Republicans for everything. The ad would've made MoveOn people blush.

To sum it up - Bush ad was positive and had an uplifting message about the United States turning the corner. Dem ad was negative attack ad with a specific call to action to support Democrats.

Now if Republicans in 2002 or 2004 used images of coffins and said something like "8 years of a Democratic president gave us this. Vote Republican," there would be no difference.

Personally, I don't care. The coffins are relevant images that illustrate the Dems' message that, if elected, they will cut and run.

And the funny thing is that the Dems' defense is that Bush did it, too. As described above, I do see some distinction in how they were used. But the Dems thought Bush was wrong to use the coffin. Not only did they use coffins themselves, but they use the Bush ad as validation that theirs is okay. Even though it's okay because Bush did it, it's only wrong that Bush did it. So

I would like to know what they feel the distinction is that makes theirs morally superior. After all, you obviously share the same double double standard that you criticize Boehner for having.

>Apparently, despite Democrat sneers, the Republican Party IS the party of God... at least the party of the acts of God.

Wait are you sure it was an act of God and not Devil?

>In the Bush ad, the half second with the coffin helped to illustrate the trying times the country went through at the start of the presidency and then how the country rose above it.

Err...you REALLY think that ad was not run to get votes or money? I am mean you SERIOUSLY think that???

>To sum it up - Bush ad was positive and had an uplifting message about the United States turning the corner.

What corrner? The Iraq situation gotten much. much worse, the entire Middle situation too. The economy is having the slowest, most jobless recovery ever. We got NSA spying without warrant on people, president who think he can just sign away laws. I can go on...but I am sure you do not agree with anoy of those points (though I would love to see you argue how more and more road side bombs in Iraq are good).

>he coffins are relevant images that illustrate the Dems' message that, if elected, they will cut and run.

Riiiightt.... because your alternative is so much better. Many of the soldiers are on teh SIXTH rotation, there is no where near enough troops in Iraq to contain the violence, the reconstruction has halted to a stop and you no longer even hear any squeaks about how Iraqi oil will pay for it all.

>And the funny thing is that the Dems' defense is that Bush did it, too.

Wait so pointing to they "fakely" outraged Republican that they are hypocrats is bad, right?

>I would like to know what they feel the distinction is that makes theirs morally superior.

I do not know about moral superiority. But I fairly sure Republicans lost that when Tom DeLay laundered money, or when they claimed to be fiscal conservatives and then blew up the size of the government to the HUGEST size ever!!! Or when they appointed a guy who was in charge of horse races to be in charge of and emergency response agency and how was dinning and could not be disturbed when all hell was breaking loose.

Ya fallacy is that you keep comparing two sides and whining that "Dems did it too".

Though I am fairly sure I mentioned this before let me use this example again.
In my childhood when I came home with a C and my mother was not happy I woudl say....well Billy over there got a D.
To which she would always reply: "I do not care what Billy got, you are responsible for holding your promise of getting an A"

Basically what I am saying is: Do not point to democrats as your measure. Just at least ry hold on to your promises you hypocrats!!!

Just as a note..the images of coffins in the dem commercial point out how Bush war is costing us American lives more and more and their seem to be no end.


>After all, you obviously share the same double double standard that you criticize Boehner for having.

Err...having a double double just means it negates back to having a standard.
Its two negatives basically. I am assuming thats a typo?

Too much to respond to... will just refer to the fallacy in saying my fallacy is my argument is that Dems did it, too.

I already said that my argument was there was a distinction in the usage. But your sole argument when you started the thread was Bush did it too.

I mused how after the Dems criticized Bush, they go and do (what they claim is) the same thing. So after they say it's wrong, they do it themselves, without offering a distinction why there's is any better than when Bush did it.

Have you seen both ads side by side, after all? Sure the Bush ad is ultimately to get votes, but in no way did it show coffins and use them as a reason to give him money.

P.S. double double does not cancel each other out. 2x2 equals 4, not 0. I was saying you have a double standard of what is a double standard.

>I already said that my argument was there was a distinction in the usage. But your sole argument when you started the thread was Bush did it too.

Right...if you originally start doing something and critisize people for doing exact same thing...that hypocrasy right?
As in do what I say not do what do?

I can only repeat myself so many times. I already said that there was a distinction in how the images were used, which made the Dems ad distasteful.

I am reminded of why I got bored here.

>can only repeat myself so many times. I already said that there was a distinction in how the images were used, which made the Dems ad distasteful.

I do believe I have said before that simply saying things does not make it true. If it is frustrating to you that your words do not have the power to just make things appear you should move to Saudi Arabia, or potentially ingraciate yourself to th Bush adminitration and wait till he issues a signing statement which says taht he is not obligated to follow the US Constitution.

In this case, saying it does make it true. You're calling me a hypocrite. But by definition (a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings) I am not, because I said I believe there is a difference. Your snide remarks don't change the definition of "hypocrite".

You, on the other hand, have argued that there is no difference. And you have no criticism of the Democrats' usage, just Bush'. So that makes you, by definition, a hypocrite.

Checkmate.

/You seem to have missed a little point. Lets brake it down:

When republicans aired the bush commercial I did not post and make a big deal out of it.

When democrats aired the iraq coffin commercial, republicans made a big stink about it.

WHAT I AM Pointing out is that its hypocrytical of republicans to do so, since they aired one of their own.

I see no difference between the two and I did not start yelling that the republican one should be pulled.

I see no difference between the two and I did not start yelling that the democrat one should be pulled.

There is no hypocracy there, because my outrage was over republican "fake" outrage when the dem commercial came out. It is not over the fact that the republicans aired their commercial.

Now it would be hypocritical if I said republicans should not have aired their, but dems could air theirs. I have not said that though. The fact that you do not see the difference, simply demostrates your bias. Let me use a simpler anology.

Lets say there are two guys living next to each other, name Ron and Don.

On Saturday Ron took his carpet and hanged it outside to dry. On Saturday Don took his bathmat and hanged it outside to dry. At which point in time Ron started yelling, how dare you hang your laundry outside. To which Don said, why not, you hanged your carpet outside. Yes, said Ron but mine is a carpet and yours is a bathmat.

Do you think just cause its carpet it could be hanged outside, but a bathmat could not.

Do you also believe that using images of civilian victims killed by terrorists in US are different that images of soldiers killed by insurgents/terrorist in Iraq?

In fact, both are casualties of what you guys call "War On Terror".

And you seriously can NOT see this???
That is actually very, very sad.

Both are displayed for political purposes mind you. So do not even pretend you can use the argument that using it for one political party is ok but its not ok for the other.

Watch both the ads. The Bush ad uses the image as part of telling a story about the the first year of Bush's presidency. At the point of the quick shot of the casket, along with some other 9/11 images, the subtitle said "a day of tragedy... a test for all Americans" and continues on. But in no way did the ad highlight the coffins to say give to me because this guy is dead. There is no question that the Dem ad was showing the caskets as a reason to give them support.

So both ads are designed to pull on the emotional strings.

The republican ad is pulling on them by saying be sad and outraged because the tragedy.

The democratic ad surprizingly works the same way. Believe it or not but millions of people in this country are outraged and sad that these soldiers died because of bush's lies. (you have seen the bush approval and iraq disapproval polls for the last 2 years right?)

So is ok for republicans to envoke emotion for their political purposes?

So is ok for democrats to envoke emotion for their political purposes?

link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101334.html

Scared yet?

err, wrong thread for the above link

The Bush ad had nothing to do with being outraged, and overall not about being sad. It was a very positive ad, about the country "turning the corner". 9/11 did happen during Bush's first term, and it was inideed sad, but you can't expect it to be omitted from the history of Bush's first term.

Anyway, sure it's okay for both Republicans and Democrats to evoke emotions. They do that every day. It's a question of going over the line. Just like the infamous "Daisy" ad in 1964. I thought this latest Dem ad was pretty shady. And the coffins were the least shady part.

>It's a question of going over the line.
How is over the line? It pains me to see every soldier who fell in this war which was started by lies. Every coffin is a broken family, kids with father/mother, parents who got to see their child die before they did!!!
IN A WAR THAT WAS STARTED BY LIES!!!! Every american should see those coffins, every american should see the price we are paying for this. So that they may understand the pain!!! Where is you just want to shut in the back of you minds and go lalalala!!! That is so traitorous!!!

>Just like the infamous "Daisy" ad in 1964
Never heard. What is the Daisy ad?

err, correction
kids with = kids without

Trust me, you know the ad - it's the LBJ ad of the little girl plucking the flowers at the same time there is the countdown of the nuclear missile.

And we've gone over this a million times - no, the war was not started by lies. We found 500 sarin- and mustard-gas-filled artillery shells, live botulinum toxin, cyanide salt, and nearly two tons of uranium. And we know WMDs were flown to Syria in gutted commercial jets just before we went to war. We know Iraq was supporting and sponsoring terrorism. So on and so forth.

Forget it. I can only say it so many times. Talk about shutting your mind and going lalalala.

I guess since you feel Saddam was so harmless, there is no reason why we shouldn't free him and put him back in power.

>We found 500 sarin- and mustard-gas-filled artillery shells, live botulinum toxin, cyanide salt, and nearly two tons of uranium.

We did???? I woudl think then Bush would be talking about that everyday. Who do you hear this from? Or do you just make things up?

>And we know WMDs were flown to Syria in gutted commercial jets just before we went to war.
I got to say this? WHY IS IT THATONLY YOU KEEP SAYING THESE THINGS? I HAVE NO HEARD THAT ANYWHERE?