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 05-18-2003, 08:43 AM   #21
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:24 PM
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: 09:24 PM
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: 09:24 PM

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: 10,885
Local Time: 09:24 PM
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: 09:24 PM
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: 11,782
Local Time: 09:24 PM
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: 09:24 PM
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: 10,885
Local Time: 09:24 PM
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: 10,885
Local Time: 09:24 PM
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: 09:24 PM
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  
Old 05-18-2003, 09:24 PM   #31
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:24 AM
Melon,

"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."

You crack me up often because you find a way to link every problem in the USA with a man that was president 15 years ago. Inflation in the 1980s was brought down by the Fed Chairmans high interest rates, known as "Shock therapy". I know that the high unemployment and high inflation of the Carter years were not entirely his fault, but your explanation which gives him a free pass on these things that happened while he was in office and puts everything on the Republican administration before and the one after is simply inaccurate and not objective.

Seabird had a lot of interesting things to say. Take the party blinders off and pull up a seat.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 10:12 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
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.
If she comes back telling me where she lived, then maybe we can have a discussion. My bets are on the South / "Sun Belt." I guess I talk as an embittered Northerner, whose father lost his good paying job, due to corporate bankruptcy--due to executive embezzlement. Thank goodness the union had been on strike the year prior and secured a 401K-based retirement fund, otherwise he would have lost it entirely. Pardon me if I don't share in the Reagan love fest, but don't think that I'm sitting on my laurels. I'll have amassed enough expensive pieces of paper that I'll be more educated than 99% of the U.S. After all, that really was one of the lasting legacies of that decade.

Don't be so pedantic to assume that all my experiences of Reagan come from the media. If I had lied from the beginning about my age and was really fifty years old, what would you have said then about what I have written?

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 10:39 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
You crack me up often because you find a way to link every problem in the USA with a man that was president 15 years ago. Inflation in the 1980s was brought down by the Fed Chairmans high interest rates, known as "Shock therapy". I know that the high unemployment and high inflation of the Carter years were not entirely his fault, but your explanation which gives him a free pass on these things that happened while he was in office and puts everything on the Republican administration before and the one after is simply inaccurate and not objective.

Seabird had a lot of interesting things to say. Take the party blinders off and pull up a seat.
Am I giving Carter a free pass? Not at all, but I find it very difficult to believe that all of that happened, because of him.

I merely wish to enact what the GOP supposedly stood for: fiscal solvency. But that was always a bunch of bullshit. It has always been a trade-off between social welfare by the Democrats and corporate welfare / militarism by the Republicans. The latter just happens to be far more expensive.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 05-18-2003, 10:56 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 09:24 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.
Anyway, to actually answer the original topic, it's how they whip everyone into shape. If you're looking for an example of the Democrats doing it, they don't do it very often, but they did do it to former Rep. James Traficant (D-Ohio), who was the sole Democrat to vote for Rep. Dennis Hastert as Speaker of the House in 2001. They went as far to all but boot him out of the party for that little stunt. Traficant always was an attention seeker, though, and Democrats certainly shed no tears in booting him out of the House after that prison sentence he got (was it bribery? I forgot...).

If you're looking for "tolerance" in politics, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. It's a game. Democrats tout inclusiveness and tolerance, while not doing anything about it, and Republicans use Christianity, while creating a large war budget and killing prisoners. Each party does have their selling points I guess.

I must admit that it is pretty harsh, but the Republican Party needs to make up for lost time on their cultural revolution. After all, Clinton spoiled their party and there's always fears that Dubya will share a similar fate as his father. It's time to crank up the rhetoric. Civilians who oppose him are terrorist sympathizers and Democrats...well, we all know that most of them are probably French anyway. But why should the all-powerful Bush Administration have any tolerance for dissent within his own ranks? There's a war, and those who aren't with him are clearly against him.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 03:21 AM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:24 AM
Melon,

"I merely wish to enact what the GOP supposedly stood for: fiscal solvency. But that was always a bunch of bullshit. It has always been a trade-off between social welfare by the Democrats and corporate welfare / militarism by the Republicans. The latter just happens to be far more expensive."

If you look at the democratic party in the 1960s, the above characterization would be turned on its head. The JFK/LBJ administrations out spent the previous Republican administrations on military spending. They also were more active on the military front than Ike had been. Certainly this extra spending created deficits and increased the national debt, but National Security was improved and the poverty rate was reduced.

We should also remember that if Jimmy Carter had won in 1980, he would have been increasing the military budget as well, just not to the degree that Reagan did.

I would not support any administration that would put a balanced budget over the immediate needs of national security or the economy.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 10:14 AM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I would not support any administration that would put a balanced budget over the immediate needs of national security or the economy.
There is a difference between "immediate needs" and excessive tax cuts, coupled with excessive spending.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 04:47 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 02:24 AM
There are two things that require heavy spending and tax cuts. Heavy spending is needed to fight a war. Tax cuts are needed to get the economy moving again.
STING2 is offline  
Old 05-19-2003, 07:27 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
There are two things that require heavy spending and tax cuts. Heavy spending is needed to fight a war. Tax cuts are needed to get the economy moving again.
I disagree with both, more so with the latter than the former. I have grown to believe that an increase in military spending was needed to update our military from the man-intensive Vietnam War era to "technological" warfare. I believe that it is time for another update to "smart" warfare. What I do question, however, is military waste. There has always been the long-running joke about the $90,000 toilet, and, if anything, I think the military is in need of a major audit.

Tax cuts, however, I think have been excessive and targeted to the wrong entities. There were plenty of Fortune 500 companies paying little to no taxes before these current rounds of tax cuts; so are we suddenly going to start giving them rebates? Of course, with the airline industry, I guess we already have. That tax cut mentality isn't going to erase fiscal irresponsibility that has shaken stock market confidence, nor is it going to erase the massive debt they accumulated during the 1990s. The only tax cuts that may actually mean anything would be payroll tax cuts, as that would potentially drive consumer spending, but I don't see good old Dubya doing anything substantial about that--but, yet, he proposed dividend tax cuts. We can clearly see where his priorities lie. "Trickle-down economics" has been a joke all along, but I guess no one has informed the Bush family yet.

Anyhow, that's really all I have to contribute to this topic. It has certainly been quite interesting, but I need a real break from the blue crack here. A civil and intelligent argument, as usual, STING2...

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 05-20-2003, 07:41 AM   #39
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 09:24 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox



Ummmm....The last part of your statement clearly demonstrates that you are not moderate
No that's just your opinion

Actually I remember the gas lines of Carter but also the Peace Agreement he helped foster.

As for Reagan I remember the rampant consumerism and mostly Irangate every afternoon on TV. Oli North was a traitor, and I'm not sure Reagan wasn't also, at least in his complicity or oversight.
My "favorite" patriotic channel has a convicted traitor as one of their war consultants
__________________

Scarletwine 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 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×