[hyteckit]

You know Republicans, always using the tragic event of 9/11 to their advantage. Now a Republican senator has gone too far. His TV ad campaign painted smoke to the twin towers. Unbelievable!!!

The US News has a link to the video ad.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/local...6dewinead.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1823708.shtml
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...21dewinead.htm

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

You know Republicans, always using the tragic event of 9/11 to their advantage. Now a Republican senator has gone too far. His TV ad campaign painted smoke to the twin towers. Unbelievable!!!

The US News has a link to the video ad.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/local...6dewinead.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1823708.shtml
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...21dewinead.htm

How does a "republican" use images of 9/11 to his/her advantage? Maybe like Michael Moore? Don't most of us know exactly what happened?

None of the links work for the images anyways, so how are we supposed to judge them?

[Chuckit]

OK, I think referring to 9/11 is tacky, and faking images is tacky as well, but I'm kind of failing to see the "too far" here.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by idjeff

None of the links work for the images anyways, so how are we supposed to judge them?

I had to switch over to Firefox to access the links on the page (including the movie link)

[mac128k-1984]

I think using the 9/11 attack for political purposes is wrong, regardless if its liberals or conservatists.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

OK, I think referring to 9/11 is tacky, and faking images is tacky as well, but I'm kind of failing to see the "too far" here.

Agreed. The you-had-better-be-afraid-of-terrorist-and-vote-for-me schtick has been used ad nauseum for 5 years now. This one doesn't really sink to any particularly new low ... just more of the status quo.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Agreed. The you-had-better-be-afraid-of-terrorist-and-vote-for-me schtick has been used ad nauseum for 5 years now. This one doesn't really sink to any particularly new low ... just more of the status quo.

Right, just as a massive terror plot in the UK is foiled.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Agreed. The you-had-better-be-afraid-of-terrorist-and-vote-for-me schtick has been used ad nauseum for 5 years now. This one doesn't really sink to any particularly new low ... just more of the status quo.

Unfortunately, they will keep using it until it doesn't work anymore. It's all they have left since the war in Iraq has become such a disaster and they have no one to blame except themselves.

A few terror plots may distract the public for awhile but I think people are getting desensitized somewhat. I'm guessing there will be less mileage out of this one.

[hyteckit]

Hey, no outrage against faking images from Republicans here?

What's up? Double standards? Hypocrisy?

[evfish84]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Hey, no outrage against faking images from Republicans here?

What's up? Double standards? Hypocrisy?

Politicians, both democrat and republican, lie all the time. It's almost part of the job. This type of thing is nothing new. All it does is show that 9/11 is no longer held as the sacred "never again" anymore. Whatever. It happened with Pearl Harbor some 50 years ago as well.

[Shaddim]

The smoke was blowing the worng way in the images, I guess that's a "bad thing". he should have used actual photos. It's not like having a guy lay down in front of a camera and make it seeem that he's a war "victim", but it's till tacky.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Hey, no outrage against faking images from Republicans here?

What's up? Double standards? Hypocrisy?

Hyperbole?


Yeah, it's tacky, but we do know that the Towers were destroyed, and that they were on fire, it's not like it was totally fabricated... unlike the guys posing for the cameras in Lebanon.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

The smoke was blowing the worng way in the images, I guess that's a "bad thing". he should have used actual photos. It's not like having a guy lay down in front of a camera and make it seeem that he's a war "victim", but it's till tacky.

Oh come on now. I need to see some real outrage like in this fake smoke photo thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/304319/reuters-busted-faked-war-photo-lebanon/

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Oh come on now. I need to see some real outrage like in this fake smoke photo thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=304319

What do you want? That was tacky too.

[Monique]

They know they are not worth much as administrators, only good at using the fear factor nothing else.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Hyperbole?


Yeah, it's tacky, but we do know that the Towers were destroyed, and that they were on fire, it's not like it was totally fabricated... unlike the guys posing for the cameras in Lebanon.

How is faking fire on a picture of a non-burning building any more "real" than a guy playing dead? I mean, yes, the buildings did burn at one time, and yes, people do actually die in bombings.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How is faking fire on a picture of a non-burning building any more "real" than a guy playing dead? I mean, yes, the buildings did burn at one time, and yes, people do actually die in bombings.

Maybe because that particular building actually was on fire, but that particular guy wasn't dead?

Hey, I admitted the building smoke thing was tacky, but it's not like playing dead for the camera.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Hey, I admitted the building smoke thing was tacky, but it's not like playing dead for the camera.

Did you read that other thread ? There no reason to believe this guy was playing dead for the camera. He was where he was ... one paper (NYT) said the guy was dead, another source (NPR) said the guy had just fallen and was hurt. Same picture, two different captions .... doesn't sound like a guy playing dead but news editors just picking whatever caption suited them without really knowing what the situation was.

Slide as shown in NPR
Source Article

[hey!_Zeus]

Scumbag!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Did you read that other thread ? There no reason to believe this guy was playing dead for the camera. [/URL]

Except that he crawled under the pipes to pass out, and was striking a pose. Yeah, that looked completely normal.

Damn, you guys can't be that dense.

[hey!_Zeus]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Except that he crawled under the pipes to pass out, and was striking a pose. Yeah, that looked completely normal.

Damn, you guys can't be that dense.

Wrong thread!!!

Are you that dense???

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Hyperbole?


Yeah, it's tacky, but we do know that the Towers were destroyed, and that they were on fire, it's not like it was totally fabricated... unlike the guys posing for the cameras in Lebanon.

People didn't die in Lebanon?! So what're they bitching about?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hey!_Zeus

Wrong thread!!!

Are you that dense???

I know you're having trouble following the discussion, but if you'll look up a few posts you'll see the reference.

Here, I'll help.

"How is faking fire on a picture of a non-burning building any more "real" than a guy playing dead? I mean, yes, the buildings did burn at one time, and yes, people do actually die in bombings."

Remeber kids, stay in school. Reading is fundamental.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Remeber kids, stay in school. Reading is fundamental.

"We expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving simple objectives -- like literacy, literacy in math, the ability to read and write."

"I want to thank you for the importance that you've shown for education and literacy."

"And if you're interested in the quality of education and you're paying attention to what you hear at Laclede, why don't you volunteer? Why don't you mentor a child how to read?"

"As Luce reminded me, he said, without data, without facts, without information, the discussions about public education mean that a person is just another opinion."

"I love the idea of a school in which people come to get educated and stay in the state in which they're educated."

"The public education system in America is one of the most important foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society."

"I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be — a more literate country and a hopefuller country."

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Except that he crawled under the pipes to pass out, and was striking a pose. Yeah, that looked completely normal.

How ironic, Stein. You could be a picture editor for the NYT.
1) See picture someone else took.
2) Make up fairy tell story of how picture came to be in the absence of any real knowledge of what the heck may have actually transpired ... just whatever your gut tells you most likely happened.
3) Post on web since nobody really knows any different.

Seriously, do you not see that you just demonstrated by example exactly how this photo could have been miscaptioned in the first place ?

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Damn, you guys can't be that dense.

I still can't believe all the verbal gymnastics the Right went through trying to assert that Bush might not have been "lying" about WMDs ... only repeating untruths which he did not know were untrue at the time. Despite the fact that there were numerous, public or internal debunkings of the very lies he uttered prior to him uttering them at the SOTU in 2003. You think I'm dense for holding out the possibility that there may be an explanation for what happened here other than your assertion that it was staged .... I think the Right is dense for believing that Bush was actually speaking what he honestly believed when all circumstantial evidence would point to him knowingly lying. Go figure.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

"We expect the states to show us whether or not we're achieving simple objectives -- like literacy, literacy in math, the ability to read and write."

"I want to thank you for the importance that you've shown for education and literacy."

"And if you're interested in the quality of education and you're paying attention to what you hear at Laclede, why don't you volunteer? Why don't you mentor a child how to read?"

"As Luce reminded me, he said, without data, without facts, without information, the discussions about public education mean that a person is just another opinion."

"I love the idea of a school in which people come to get educated and stay in the state in which they're educated."

"The public education system in America is one of the most important foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society."

"I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be — a more literate country and a hopefuller country."

That's fascinating... completely incomprehensible given the discussion, but you get props for derailment.

I suppose you can just concede now and beat the Christmas rush.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Krusty

How ironic, Stein. You could be a picture editor for the NYT.
1) See picture someone else took.
2) Make up fairy tell story of how picture came to be in the absence of any real knowledge of what the heck may have actually transpired ... just whatever your gut tells you most likely happened.
3) Post on web since nobody really knows any different.

Seriously, do you not see that you just demonstrated by example exactly how this photo could have been miscaptioned in the first place ?

Ah, but the difference is, my explanation is actually plausible, unlike the Left screaming, "look at that poor victim".

I still can't believe all the verbal gymnastics the Right went through trying to assert that Bush might not have been "lying" about WMDs ... only repeating untruths which he did not know were untrue at the time. Despite the fact that there were numerous, public or internal debunkings of the very lies he uttered prior to him uttering them at the SOTU in 2003. You think I'm dense for holding out the possibility that there may be an explanation for what happened here other than your assertion that it was staged .... I think the Right is dense for believing that Bush was actually speaking what he honestly believed when all circumstantial evidence would point to him knowingly lying. Go figure.

Wow, a somersault with a full twist. Too bad you left the mat.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Ah, but the difference is, my explanation is actually plausible, unlike the Left screaming, "look at that poor victim".

Who screamed that ? There are far more tragic real pictures out there for the left to rally around.

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Wow, a somersault with a full twist. Too bad you left the mat.

Good point. My comment was out of left field as far as topic ... just remembered some inane debates from last year .... not even sure that you were one who promoted that viewpoint.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Who screamed that ? There are far more tragic real pictures out there for the left to rally around.

Who's screaming? How about the members here who were actually claiming that the guy was actually injured or dead (hyteckit)? It's just silly when a fake is that obvious.

Then why won't they just use those? What's with the posing and photo frabrication?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Who's screaming? How about the members here who were actually claiming that the guy was actually injured or dead (hyteckit)? It's just silly when a fake is that obvious.

Then why won't they just use those? What's with the posing and photo frabrication?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the photo of the guy who fell down was real? Why would you fake a photo of a guy falling down, ferchrissakes? You yourself admit that the idea of faking that photo is ridiculous. So what makes you 100% certain it is fake?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Who's screaming? How about the members here who were actually claiming that the guy was actually injured or dead (hyteckit)? It's just silly when a fake is that obvious.

Then why won't they just use those? What's with the posing and photo frabrication?

What? I said the guy was injured or dead? Now, you are just making sh*t up.

MacNStein, making false accussation and using that as a fact. You can't just use made up sh*t to back up more made up sh*t. Then again, that's what you always do.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Perhaps, just perhaps, the photo of the guy who fell down was real? Why would you fake a photo of a guy falling down, ferchrissakes? You yourself admit that the idea of faking that photo is ridiculous. So what makes you 100% certain it is fake?

I never said that the idea of faking the photo is ridiculous, I said that it's ridiculous that people would believe it.

Now, maybe he was joking around? Maybe he told the photographer, "here, I'll give you a body", and then crawled under the pipes and struck a pose? I can believe that. It's sad and irreverent, but believable.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

What? I said the guy was injured or dead? Now, you are just making sh*t up.

MacNStein, making false accussation and using that as a fact. You can't just use made up sh*t to back up more made up sh*t. Then again, that's what you always do.

Oh really?

"All I see is one recuer fainted due to exhaustion."

You can't tell when something is staged and when they're posing? I'm glad you're not in forensics.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Oh really?

"All I see is one recuer fainted due to exhaustion."

You can't tell when something is staged and when they're posing? I'm glad you're not in forensics.

Haha... where's your tinfoil hat. Like your fuzzy logic. Seen any flying saucers lately?

[Macrobat]

Wrong. Same paper, caption change occurred in a retraction - thanks for playing, tho.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Haha... where's your tinfoil hat. Like your fuzzy logic. Seen any flying saucers lately?

Hmmm, a post with no substance... color me surprised.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Hmmm, a post with no substance... color me surprised.

Funny, cause those were the responses conservatives have been using on these forums here.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Funny, cause those were the responses conservatives have been using on these forums here.

and another.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

I think using the 9/11 attack for political purposes is wrong, regardless if its liberals or conservatists.

I disagree. 9/11 was a world-changing event unlike anything we've seen since WWII. It changed the course of world history (and therefore politics) forever.

I don't know why we are always trying to hide the fact that 9/11 happened. Are images of it inflamitory? Sure. But why shouldn't we be pissed off that 19 people, wish such a sophisticatedly simple plan could kill 3000 civilians?

Do I like seeing it? No. Do I want to remember it? Yes.

Face it, it's part of politics. And the main reason Democrats don't want Republicans using images of it in ads is because it exposes their major weakness with voters.

Meanwhile, Democrats don't have problems with images of war dead - soldiers, civilians, whatever - to underline their anti-war positions. And I don't have a problem with that, either.

News is news.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Face it, it's part of politics. And the main reason Democrats don't want Republicans using images of it in ads is because it exposes their major weakness with voters

What weakness would that be?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What weakness would that be?

Well from what I heard, Republicans are blaming Democrats for 9/11.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

That's fascinating... completely incomprehensible given the discussion, but you get props for derailment.

I suppose you can just concede now and beat the Christmas rush.

I was displaying the irony of your statement about reading, and Bush being a dumbass.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What weakness would that be?

National security. Look at the polls. Every time people are concerned about their safety, terrorism, etc., Republicans go up in the polls.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying it's true.

Otherwise, why would the Daily Kos-types instantly come up with a conspiracy theory that Bush faked the liquid-bomb plot because Lieberman lost?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

National security. Look at the polls. Every time people are concerned about their safety, terrorism, etc., Republicans go up in the polls.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying it's true.

Otherwise, why would the Daily Kos-types instantly come up with a conspiracy theory that Bush faked the liquid-bomb plot because Lieberman lost?

Cause Republicans are brainwashing the American public with their conservative media.

Everyday I heard on the news "Democrats, weak on security", "Democrats, cut and run". I guess brainwashing works and Republicans know that.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Cause Republicans are brainwashing the American public with their conservative media.

Everyday I heard on the news "Democrats, weak on security", "Democrats, cut and run". I guess brainwashing works and Republicans know that.

Careful, you are sounding like a tin-foil hat type. You can't seriously think that the American media is vastly conservative.

What's the biggest newspaper with the most influence? The New York Times. I seriously doubt you can call it conservative.

Are there sources that lean conservative? Sure. Fox News. Wall Street Journal. But I don't think those are powerful enough to "brainwash" the American public.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Otherwise, why would the Daily Kos-types instantly come up with a conspiracy theory that Bush faked the liquid-bomb plot because Lieberman lost?

Not that I'd put it past the Daily Kos or MoveOn, but did they actually come out with that?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Not that I'd put it past the Daily Kos or MoveOn, but did they actually come out with that?

It's absolutely been floated by community members at Kos, literally from the time the arrests were announced.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Careful, you are sounding like a tin-foil hat type. You can't seriously think that the American media is vastly conservative.

To say the media is "vastly conservative" is probably an overstatement, but it does generally lean right. It is also true that the Republicans true to paint the Democrats as weak on security — and the Democrats really aren't doing anything to dispel the perception.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

It's absolutely been floated by community members at Kos, literally from the time the arrests were announced.

No one could dream up goofier political times than these if they tried.

So now Bush is trying frame militant Islamics with a huge plot carried out literally a few days after a primary. Said plot involves the UK and Pakistan who also must be in on it… and all this grand conspiracy on behalf of the running mate of Bush’s arch political foe in 2000; the pair that the moonbats themselves still swear up and down actually won the 2000 election!

Does it get any kookier than that?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

To say the media is "vastly conservative" is probably an overstatement, but it does generally lean right.