?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
01 October 2004 @ 12:11 am
What?  
Can someone explain this to me?

http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/week_2004_09_26.html#001760
 
 
 
destined4nothingdestined4nothin on October 1st, 2004 12:36 am (UTC)
wow.

They have a bunch of crackhead monkeys running that campaign. This was like when they had the clips of Nazi Germany and all this militaristic imagery on some ad trying to make Kerry look bad, but it made absolutely no sense and looked like the bastard child of a very obvious cheap shot at Kerry calling him a nazi, and an ad proclaiming Bush fuhrer.

I was very confused.
sanneb on October 1st, 2004 02:37 pm (UTC)
If Bush ran against Jesus

In slightly more depressing news, did anyone else hear about the fliers that the Republican party put in states like West Virginia and Arkansas stating that if Kerry won, the Bible would be banned?
Psycho Joepsyjoe_dilandau on October 1st, 2004 12:57 am (UTC)
It's anti-Kerry, but it's posing like bipartisanship for the debate. At first glance it might seem as either an olive branch to Kerry as they head into the debates or just a confusing pro-Kerry message, but the use of pro-Kerry supporters for the quotes (instead of say bipartisan people) leads me to believe that the "ad" is intended to be satirical, somewhat like a political cartoon is.
Andyddrmallrat on October 1st, 2004 05:10 am (UTC)
Yea,I can explain. Thats an obviously anti-Kery poster. But to understand,lets try to put ourselves in the shoes of his campaign managers.
Step one:Ingest large amounts of Lysergic acid.
Step two:Beat yourself over the head with a frying pan repeatedly.
Step three:Hyperventilate until you nearly pass out.

Now,look at the poster again. Makes sense,huh?
 This is counterculture from the underground.lafinjack on October 1st, 2004 09:48 pm (UTC)
Hmm... tried all that, still doesn't work for me...
shoopmcfnord on October 1st, 2004 06:22 am (UTC)
Here's the deal: Bush has won many debates by lowering expectations as much as he can. I think in peace-time, this strategy works. In war, people just don't fall for it. That's my hope.
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on October 1st, 2004 08:26 am (UTC)
Debate isn't war, Jeff. It isn't being president. You don't have to talk... or argue or state your convictions in a meaningful way when you're a president... you got to stand firm, be steadfast. Actions speak louder than words. George W. Bush is a man of action. He went into Iraq and stopped Saddam Hussein. Iraq is now free and America is safer. In fact, the whole world is safer now that Saddam Hussein has been brought to justice. George Bush is hunting the terrorists and bringing them to justice.

John Kerry and the Democrats want you to think debates are important. Because John Kerry is a man of words. In fact he has alot of words for each of his 972 positions on Iraq. Or his plans... that cost money we don't have. Talk is cheap, Senator Kerry. It is action that's costly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rove and company have to spin this debate thing hard... they will try every spin tactic possible. Play it up. Play it down. Underemphasize. Overemphasize. Because George Bush can't lead a country let alone debate. Last night he was pathetic. He stuttered. He whined. He paused. He fumed over sub clause 42 which disallowed the throwing of feces as a response. He was skullfucked by Kerry. No pun intended.

I think one of the things they're trying to do is make Americans grade Bush and Kerry on seperate scales. For example, trying to convince people to let Bush into grade two despite his marginal performance while encouraging the attitude that Kerry is trying to run for the most powerful position in the free world and you gotta scrutinize people like that. It's working though, because people are sayign things like 'No clear knock out blow for Kerry.' or 'tie'.

If Kerry and Dubya threepeats their performance from last night and Edwards doesn't get eaten by Cheney, it may work out for the Dems.
cerberus on October 2nd, 2004 01:08 am (UTC)
Actually, no. By using the military as a nation-building tool, he's effectively quagmired them in a set location, hardly the best, or even a good strategy against militants who especially now are constantly on the move.

Now most of what they can do is limited to putting down insurgents who are either just remnants of Saddam's supporters and will do so until the death/capture of every last one of them, or Iraqis who are really starting to be unhappy of the constant US presence and the attacks they attract. And since said military is unused to nation building procedures, it makes them stay longer, which -hey!- makes the residents like them less and less and gives terrorists more time to move around in the region.

So far, nobody has yet to prove anything that was in Iraq presented any danger to America, unless you count Rudi Giulianni's bull that "Saddam Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction". No Al-Qaeda ties, no WMDs (which, if you'll recall, was reasons [i.e., bull] 1 and 2 for the war, and what Congress originally authorized the war for. Guess no.3: "freeing the Iraqi people" was the charm.).

Changing the reasons for the war was genius, btw; it makes everyone who later regretted it because the US "military intelligence" was an oxymoron look like flip-flops, despite the fact that they were the ones being lied to.

Afghanistan was a huge place all by itself, and the job of searching the whole place and rooting out all the camps wasn't even close to being done. Splitting up your forces to go into another country is hardly a logical plan.

And honestly, Jeff himself has posted some stuff about Bush's own flip-flopping. I guess it's so much easier to excuse that kind of behaviour when the president keeps on using a terrorist attack as an excuse, instead of say, a change in a bill that makes it passable instead of rejected outright.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on October 2nd, 2004 01:11 am (UTC)
If you're responding to the first part of his blog, he was being sarcastic... or I'm missing something on both accounts.
cerberus on October 2nd, 2004 01:14 am (UTC)
Argh, I dunno what came over me, man, sorry. I supposedly gave up politics so long ago, but I guess every once in a while it just boils out for a bit.
Jeffrey Carl Fadenjeffreyatw on October 2nd, 2004 01:15 am (UTC)
Well, no problem. Getting blood boiling is a good thing. I encourage political debate. But personally, from time to time I'm a little bewildered by labardine's phrasing and intentions. Just trying to clear things up, or something.
cerberus on October 2nd, 2004 01:35 am (UTC)
Well, you might as well watch these, if you haven't already. You need realplayer, but it's definitely worth the download.
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on October 2nd, 2004 02:46 pm (UTC)
So I'm guessing you saw Jon take it to Giuliani on Thursday then? That was almost better than the debate. At least it was to me, I've never seen anyone in real news contend with a Bush spinner yet except MAYYYYBEEE Wolf Blitzer.
cerberus on October 2nd, 2004 04:24 pm (UTC)
Oh yes, I love how Stewart actually makes the spinners work for it.
cerberus on October 2nd, 2004 01:13 am (UTC)
Oh, sorry that the response was so long and all. I shouldn't have replied at all, since these discussions always end up boiling my blood. Dunno what came over me.
Ranagan_Labardinelabardine on October 2nd, 2004 02:25 pm (UTC)
Just for the record, my tongue was firmly in cheek when I spoke 'on message' there before the tildes. =P
Jeff wanted an explaination of a Republican piece of propaganda and to explain something meant to appeal to certain frame of mind you kinda have to speak in that frame of mind. I was aiming to sound like president Bush complete with unintentional cutting irony at the with 'actions are costly' instead of' actions matter', actions have, value, actions are truly American etc.y'know something a president would say.

One of the reasons you probably get a little peeved about these discussions is because people actually say stuff like that and _MEAN IT_.

My truer sentiments were after the tildes, I don't think any Bush supporters would ever say anything about him losing face in front of Kerry let alone being skullfucked by him. In fact, the right is declaring Bush won the debate. Why not? They're claiming victory in Iraq too.

As a citizen of a foreign country, I'd rather see someone who occasionally has aspirations of being 'leader of the free world' rather than just 'President of the United States' or *snicker* 'Commander in Chief'. So I'm hoping for Kerry while at the same time buying bottled water and canned goods bulk, in case Bush weasls in again.

Josephloccster on October 2nd, 2004 07:30 pm (UTC)
Do people realize not realize how voting in the Senate works?