GOP attack ads - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-17-2003, 03:59 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Scarletwine,

I've seen worse attack adds by both democrats in Republicans over the past 20 years. I'm not saying I approve, but its simply a political reality. Attack adds were not invented by the Republicans.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 04:11 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
. Whatever it takes to sway public opinion.

In this type of situation, the thread will degenerate into a "our side uses them, but YOUR side (i) used them first, (ii) used worse ads, (iii) is hypocritical about attack ads, (iv) etc.


That said, I will take the bait.

I have no problems with the president attempting to get his agenda passed. I am not surprised by the tactic, as the president consistently thoughout his political carreer has not been afraid to take the gloves off to accomplish his agenda.

If you do not like the way he works, do not vote for him in 2004.

Peace
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 05:06 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Scarletwine,

I've seen worse attack adds by both democrats in Republicans over the past 20 years. I'm not saying I approve, but its simply a political reality. Attack adds were not invented by the Republicans.
Sting,

The origonal question was about attack ads by Republicans on a Republican. it is what I addressed.

I see it a lot in the GOP.

Do the Dems do it?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 06:37 PM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Democrats shouldn't have to lecture on common sense.
I guess we all face the temptation to think our positions are common sense and the other guy is off base.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 05-17-2003, 08:19 PM   #20
Babyface
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 19
Local Time: 04:21 PM
Re: GOP attack ads

Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine
For the last several days, the GOP party has been running attack ads against one of thier own.
Senator Voinivich of Ohio has consistently voted to approve only 350B in tax cuts and only with 50b in spending for state budget relief.
The ads invoke Reagan ( the creator of the largest deficit until now) as his tax cut creating 15m jobs. The ending has a picture of Kennedy Reagan, and Dubyah.

I guess if you are a member of the GOP you aren't allowed to vote your conscience. "With us or against us." Personally I think it is intolerable and a sad statement of that party.

I'm curious what the others think, especially the Repuiblicans here.
Is the GOP running attack ads, or some other organization, e.g., Club for Growth?
__________________
eardrumbuzz is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 08:43 AM   #21
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Scarletwine,
I'll say this...if something like this "speaks volumes about the moral character of Bush's admin", what does oral sex with an intern in the oval office then lying about it to a federal grand jury say to you about the moral character of the Clinton admin? Or, are attack ads worse in your opinion?
I think Clinton has nothing to do with the question I posed. It gets freakin old that the past is always brought up when talking about the present. I really don't see what one has to do woth the other. Can't you answer the question at hand?

And I'm aware of both parties using attack ads, but to my knowledge I've never seen and attack ad from the Dem. party or a cover corp. for their policies attack someone from their own party.

I wan't trying to get a "us against them" thing going either. I dislike attack ads period and think this is over the top. A person is allowed to vote their conscience in this country last time I checked. And sorry I do think it reflects that the Admin. will do anything (lying about aluminum tubes ect. in Iraq comes to mind) whatever necessary to further it's agenda as Dreadsox said. However that wasn't my goal. I think our political system has sunk to a new low.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 09:55 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


I think Clinton has nothing to do with the question I posed. It gets freakin old that the past is always brought up when talking about the present. I really don't see what one has to do woth the other. Can't you answer the question at hand?
As I stated in a previous post, the reason I brought up Clinton wasn't to say "Hey, your guy has bad morals too". It was to point out the hypocrisy of the left, who will defend Clinton eternally for cheating on his wife in the oval office and then lying to a federal grand jury, but when something like this happens, they disparage Bush's character. That is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black, and I was simply pointing that out.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 10:28 AM   #23
War Child
 
Seabird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: with 2 kids in high school they tell her that she's uncool, but she's still preoccupied with 1985
Posts: 906
Local Time: 11:21 AM

This is weird, because I was just thinking this morning before seeing this how Reagan seems to have been villanized after the fact by a lot of people who weren't even born or old enough to understand back then. They probably get their info from books, articles and documentaries written from the biased point of view of their anti-Reagan authors. I lived through it folks, I was a grown woman, old enough to vote for him both times. It wasn't an evil time, really! As a matter of fact, the 80's were a prosperous time, one in which the number of tall buildings in my city tripled, and when campers went from being only for the old to for young families or anybody. Of course not everyone was able to prosper, I am among those who didn't get a piece of the pie. But I don't hold Reagan or those who did responsible. It's my fault.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Reagan created 15 million McDonald's employees
No, that would be Jimmy Carter.

How many of you are old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's term? Or have you only read biased reports? I LIVED it. I remember why so many people wanted Carter out. He had ruined the economy, gas had gone from 50 cents to a dollar and a half, factories that paid 15 bucks an hour were cutting that in half or threatening to send jobs overseas. INFLATION set in. This was the beginning of the end of the good paying manufacturing job in the US which lead to unemployment, struggling, 2-parents working (often for less than what one used to make) households and the end of the American dream. Also, my bleeding hearts, were you aware Carter wanted to reinstate the draft and include girls?! Of course not. The biased wall of history won't tell you that, but I remember it.

Then there is the evil BTBS accusations. Well, does anybody ever consider what would have become of the women and children in the mud huts if the communists had taken power?! We know now in hindsight that communism fell, and it seems pointless now, but back then it was a real danger that communism would take a stronghold in central and south America, preying on impoverished people as it did in the days of the Russian Revolution, and become a wolf at the back door of the US. Reagan had to try to control this. The US wasn't really there as much as it supported the rebel factions fighting off the communists. Even Iran Contra was a result of this. There were reasons for it at the time.

Of course Reagan had his faults, all politicians do, but he really wasn't this evil demon he's been made to be years later by leftists who think they know everything No, I don't think I know everything, but the comment by 80'su2isbest called me to respond.
__________________
Seabird is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 10:33 AM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


As I stated in a previous post, the reason I brought up Clinton wasn't to say "Hey, your guy has bad morals too". It was to point out the hypocrisy of the left, who will defend Clinton eternally for cheating on his wife in the oval office and then lying to a federal grand jury, but when something like this happens, they disparage Bush's character. That is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black, and I was simply pointing that out.
I agree 80's. If the worst thing that someone can say about the man is that he plays the political game hard....then what is the problem?

Thanks for clarifying your statement. It is a VERY valid point.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 12:51 PM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Seabird
No, I don't think I know everything, but the comment by 80'su2isbest called me to respond.
Hi, I loved your post!

But I have to wonder, in what way did my post about Clinton call you?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 01:45 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Seabird
This is weird, because I was just thinking this morning before seeing this how Reagan seems to have been villanized after the fact by a lot of people who weren't even born or old enough to understand back then. They probably get their info from books, articles and documentaries written from the biased point of view of their anti-Reagan authors. I lived through it folks, I was a grown woman, old enough to vote for him both times. It wasn't an evil time, really! As a matter of fact, the 80's were a prosperous time, one in which the number of tall buildings in my city tripled, and when campers went from being only for the old to for young families or anybody. Of course not everyone was able to prosper, I am among those who didn't get a piece of the pie. But I don't hold Reagan or those who did responsible. It's my fault.
Where did you live? The South? Maybe. We don't get many seabirds in the industrial north. That makes a difference. Ever hear of the "Sun Belt"? And ever hear of the "Rust Belt"? I lived in the latter, watching all the good paying union jobs get gutted out, with them going South to the "Sun Belt," where the cheap, non-union labor lived.

Quote:
No, that would be Jimmy Carter.

How many of you are old enough to remember Jimmy Carter's term? Or have you only read biased reports? I LIVED it. I remember why so many people wanted Carter out. He had ruined the economy, gas had gone from 50 cents to a dollar and a half, factories that paid 15 bucks an hour were cutting that in half or threatening to send jobs overseas. INFLATION set in. This was the beginning of the end of the good paying manufacturing job in the US which lead to unemployment, struggling, 2-parents working (often for less than what one used to make) households and the end of the American dream. Also, my bleeding hearts, were you aware Carter wanted to reinstate the draft and include girls?! Of course not. The biased wall of history won't tell you that, but I remember it.
Oh you crack me up. I wish Republicans would get consistent stories. If an economy is good, it *must* be the result of Republicans, even if they were the presidents before. If an economy is bad, it *must* be the result of Democrats, even if they were the presidents before. So, by Republican (il)logic, Clinton is to blame for the bad economy of the present and Carter is the fault of 1976-1980....right? What about Carter's predecessors, Ford and Nixon? Here's a little history lesson: that "inflation" of yours is the result of Nixon's deregulation of consumer price controls and a precedent he set with OPEC that they could set their own prices ("pass on costs to the consumers") and the U.S. wouldn't interfere.

And do you think that inflation suddenly ended with Reagan? Please. The old man couldn't solve it anymore than Carter could, so what did he do? He redefined it. The "inflation" of Jimmy Carter is not the same "inflation" of Ronald Reagan up to today. The old definition of "inflation" put the burden on consumer prices. Hence, it kept big business from charging too much for goods, but gas prices certainly did it. However, that's not Carter's fault. OPEC, by it's nature, is a non-competitive oligopoly.

Reagan's redefinition of inflation put the largest burden on labor wages, helping set the stage for a dramatic slashing of wages in the North and a free range on hiking consumer prices. And it worked. The statistics claim that we haven't had much inflation, because wages have been stagnant for the working class, but the cost of living has gone up considerably. So where do you make up the disparity between wages and prices? Credit. College tuition has skyrocketed--a doctor I knew in the 1970s was able to work an average "summer job" to pay for an entire year of *private* university, and now it is impossible. Student loans are now in most students' pockets. Automobiles have more than doubled in price and even new car loans are out of reach for a lot of people. Welcome to leases. And how can we forget credit cards?

Of course, the corporate party had to end sooner or later. Credit does have its limits and now we're due for a deflationary period, perhaps in the same vein as Japan, whose economy we tried to emulate, and they have been an economic wreck for the past decade. I guess we'll have to see, but if it happens, I'm sure the GOP will blame it on Clinton and the religious right will cry "the end of the world." It'll be good for a chuckle, at least.

As for the draft, so it is okay to have it reinstated with men, but not with women? Now there's some sexism if I ever saw it. I can't help you with that, but if women are qualified to make the same pay as men in the workplace, they are equally qualified to be subject to the draft.

Quote:
Then there is the evil BTBS accusations. Well, does anybody ever consider what would have become of the women and children in the mud huts if the communists had taken power?! We know now in hindsight that communism fell, and it seems pointless now, but back then it was a real danger that communism would take a stronghold in central and south America, preying on impoverished people as it did in the days of the Russian Revolution, and become a wolf at the back door of the US. Reagan had to try to control this. The US wasn't really there as much as it supported the rebel factions fighting off the communists. Even Iran Contra was a result of this. There were reasons for it at the time.
"Communist" was just as much a word abused as "terrorist" is today. Reagan ignored completely as to why leftist (which is a more accurate term) revolutions were occurring in Latin America, and that was because most of these anti-communist regimes were oppressive dictatorships with it's small core of wealth and lots of poverty. However, rather than deal with the poverty, he solved it by supporting questionable groups. Remember Afghanistan?

Despite my disgust with Dubya's domestic policy, it seems like he is ready to learn from Reagan's mistakes and export democracy to the nations he occupies. I guess we'll have to see whether that is true or not.

And, by the way, I congratulate you for being an old codger pontificating to us young-ins, but if there is anything I hate more, it is ageism.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 05:55 PM   #27
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


As I stated in a previous post, the reason I brought up Clinton wasn't to say "Hey, your guy has bad morals too". It was to point out the hypocrisy of the left, who will defend Clinton eternally for cheating on his wife in the oval office and then lying to a federal grand jury, but when something like this happens, they disparage Bush's character. That is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black, and I was simply pointing that out.
Two things.
First I'm a moderate leaning left, more so since this admin. showed it's true colors (whether you agree with them or not).

Second, I've never personally defended Clinton for his moral character or actions, I dislike his actions, so I'm not the pot calling the kettle black.

edited to add:

I was around when Carter was President and think he was a damn sight better than Ronald could ever hope to be.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 06:12 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Scarletwine


Two things.
First I'm a moderate leaning left, more so since this admin. showed it's true colors (whether you agree with them or not).

Second, I've never personally defended Clinton for his moral character or actions, I dislike his actions, so I'm not the pot calling the kettle black.

edited to add:

I was around when Carter was President and think he was a damn sight better than Ronald could ever hope to be.

Ummmm....The last part of your statement clearly demonstrates that you are not moderate
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 06:14 PM   #29
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

And, by the way, I congratulate you for being an old codger pontificating to us young-ins, but if there is anything I hate more, it is ageism.

Melon
I am curious...define an old codger please....because I remember all of the things in Seabird's post. Does that mean I am an old codger too?

Ageism? I hate all ism's. I like asms.....ummm...did I say that out loud?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 07:19 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

And, by the way, I congratulate you for being an old codger pontificating to us young-ins, but if there is anything I hate more, it is ageism.

Melon
So Melon, you don't believe that with age comes a certain bit of wisdom? Why do you find it so hard to believe that she might know more about it than yoy, when you were 1 when Reagan took office and 8 or 9 when he left (you told me that yourself). Everything you know is from your books and your newspaper articles and TV programs. She experienced it as an adult. From what Seabird says, she sounds like she kept up with it at the time and was in the know.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com