new ad

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » September 23, 2004, 5:39 pm

mms://media4.streamtoyou.com/gwb/Windsurfing_256k.wmv

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 23, 2004, 5:41 pm

ouch, heh.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 23, 2004, 5:41 pm

What a Great Ad

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » September 23, 2004, 6:20 pm

Hehe, as much as i want Kerry to win this election, this was pretty funny.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 23, 2004, 6:24 pm

All of those cases were because new information was added to the bills or Bush screwed off with the money on stupid things... I have no problem with Kerry's voting record on in most areas. There are some I would question but no one is perfect... especially not the competition.

Marb

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 23, 2004, 6:38 pm

What's funny is "this" is the guy the Democrats nominated.

You had some better players fellas.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 23, 2004, 6:42 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:What's funny is "this" is the guy the Democrats nominated.

You had some better players fellas.

So did you...

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 23, 2004, 7:14 pm

The ad is funny, but there is no substance to it. You could do that to pretty much every senator or congressman. Bills get introduced. People support them. Then some very specific amendments get added on top of them (this is a stupid part of our system) or the bill gets modified in substance (this is legitimate). In the end, what is put up for vote either looks nothing like the bill propsed, has completely unrelated crap attached to it, or even though the bill is largely in tact, things got added or changed that make a person not support a bill that they previously supported. Not really suprising and I'd be pretty worried about Senators if they did not have a record like that. It would mean they were party-line voters and/or just had little interest in the substance of a bill and were just voting on it for political reasons (like all but a handful did on the PATRIOT Act).

There is really nothing to see here, other than the Bush team having done a masterful job this entire campaign of making completely normal Senatorial activities appear to be a Kerry weakness.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 23, 2004, 7:18 pm

Unfortunately, I bet it is effective. From my experience I highly doubt a majority will be interested enough to actually figure out it is total BS.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 23, 2004, 7:38 pm

Yeah, of course not. If they did, this sort of ad would not be effective. Its really no different in substance from the typical -

Don't vote for candidate X, she support eating babies!

Then it turns out that candidate X (along with many others) voted against the baby eating ban after Senator Y succussfully amended the bill so that in addition to banning the eating of babies, it also allocated $400 billion for a new bridge in Senator Y's state.

Like I said, nothing new to see here. You are sadly correct that most people are too lazy and/or too stupid to figure out why the substance of the ad is BS. But that has always been a flaw of democracy - even the stupid get to vote.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 23, 2004, 7:54 pm

Good ad.

All Team Bush has to do is instill doubt about Kerry which is easy to do with Kerry's past.

Kerry has to attack issues and make himself out not to be wishy washy. Instead of doing that, he's attacking Bush on Iraq which isn't going to cut it.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 23, 2004, 7:58 pm

About 4 hours after this attack ad came out - Kerry had an ad out countering it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 23, 2004, 9:08 pm

Funny and accurate.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 23, 2004, 9:57 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:What's funny is "this" is the guy the Democrats nominated.

You had some better players fellas.

I would have preferred clark>kerry>dean>edwards...but then again your dumb-asses voted for BUSH over MCCAIN
McCain could have had gone down as being viewed as a legendary president after 9/11, and you your forced to suck it up, lie threw your teeth and pretend Bush is a good president, that or you just avoid doing so all togeather and attack the competition, and you guys do so brilliantly

The republicans could make ghandi, MLK, and jesus look like complete assholes

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » September 23, 2004, 10:29 pm

Xzion wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:What's funny is "this" is the guy the Democrats nominated.

You had some better players fellas.
I would have preferred clark>kerry>dean>edwards...but then again your dumb-asses voted for BUSH over MCCAIN
McCain could have had gone down as being viewed as a legendary president after 9/11, and you your forced to suck it up, lie threw your teeth and pretend Bush is a good president, that or you just avoid doing so all togeather and attack the competition, and you guys do so brilliantly

The republicans could make ghandi, MLK, and jesus look like complete assholes

McCain still will be a legendary president. . .in 2008.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 23, 2004, 10:37 pm

Avestan wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:What's funny is "this" is the guy the Democrats nominated.

You had some better players fellas.
I would have preferred clark>kerry>dean>edwards...but then again your dumb-asses voted for BUSH over MCCAIN
McCain could have had gone down as being viewed as a legendary president after 9/11, and you your forced to suck it up, lie threw your teeth and pretend Bush is a good president, that or you just avoid doing so all togeather and attack the competition, and you guys do so brilliantly

The republicans could make ghandi, MLK, and jesus look like complete assholes
McCain still will be a legendary president. . .in 2008.

Seems like hel be too old to run, im hoping theyl put out Guiliani or if situation permits, ah-nuld, start a new wave of social liberalism in the party, and america for that manner that will discredit the regressive religious right

Of course that all depends on Kerrys performance over the next four years, which is at this point 100% unpredictable

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » September 23, 2004, 10:43 pm

Kerry Performance over the next 4 years will be with the Hienz corporation.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 23, 2004, 11:08 pm

Cartalas wrote:Kerry Performance over the next 4 years will be with the Hienz corporation.

Maybe Kerry and Gore can start a play on broadway. Maybe do a revision of Grumpy Old Men or something.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 23, 2004, 11:34 pm

Avestan wrote:McCain still will be a legendary president. . .in 2008.

I sincerly hope McCain never gets to be president. Supposedly once upon a time he was decent, but pretty much anymore whenever I hear him supporting something, it some lousy legislation/piece of policy.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 24, 2004, 1:43 am

Xzion wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:What's funny is "this" is the guy the Democrats nominated.

You had some better players fellas.
I would have preferred clark>kerry>dean>edwards...but then again your dumb-asses voted for BUSH over MCCAIN
McCain could have had gone down as being viewed as a legendary president after 9/11, and you your forced to suck it up, lie threw your teeth and pretend Bush is a good president, that or you just avoid doing so all togeather and attack the competition, and you guys do so brilliantly

The republicans could make ghandi, MLK, and jesus look like complete assholes

Hehe, That's right, it's all the republicans fault. That will get Kerry elected.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 24, 2004, 7:49 am

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Xzion wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote:What's funny is "this" is the guy the Democrats nominated.

You had some better players fellas.
I would have preferred clark>kerry>dean>edwards...but then again your dumb-asses voted for BUSH over MCCAIN
McCain could have had gone down as being viewed as a legendary president after 9/11, and you your forced to suck it up, lie threw your teeth and pretend Bush is a good president, that or you just avoid doing so all togeather and attack the competition, and you guys do so brilliantly

The republicans could make ghandi, MLK, and jesus look like complete assholes

Hehe, That's right, it's all the republicans fault. That will get Kerry elected.

take it for what it is, thats the closest thing to a compliment im going to give the bush team

I dont think it will be enough to get him re-elected, unless Kerry fucks up in the debates

Rivera Bladestrike · September 24, 2004, 10:02 am

For the thousanth time, Arnold can't be president.

*~*stragi*~* · Post by ***~*stragi*~*** » September 24, 2004, 10:07 am

oh, he will be president. trust me!

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 24, 2004, 11:31 am

Rivera Bladestrike wrote:For the thousanth time, Arnold can't be president.

Right now they are trying to change the constitution so people not born in the US can become the president.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 24, 2004, 12:15 pm

Thess wrote:
Rivera Bladestrike wrote:For the thousanth time, Arnold can't be president.
Right now they are trying to change the constitution so people not born in the US can become the president.

...and liberals should be leading the charge on this one. This is a great example of something that liberals love to whine about...or will we not hear the howls until a democrat foreign born candidate pops up?

If Hillary was born in France, how fast would this law be changed?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 24, 2004, 12:18 pm

Arnold is a liberal, twat. He also happens to be a republican.

Next you'll be trying to convince me Bush is a conservative.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 24, 2004, 12:53 pm

Zaelath wrote:Arnold is a liberal, twat. He also happens to be a republican.

Next you'll be trying to convince me Bush is a conservative.

Did I say anything about Arnolds political views in my post? Your additional comment gives all the more reason for liberals to jump on the bandwagon though.

Twat is an underused word.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 24, 2004, 12:59 pm

OMG those 527s are ruining the election, I call on the Supreme Court to strike down this commercial, bla bla bla bla bla

outside of the video clip of Kerry saying "i voted for the 87 billion before i voted against it", the ad is impotent. People who are pro-Bush will like it, but it isn't going to convert anybody I don't think.

That quote by Kerry pretty much sums up why he doesnt have a 30 point lead. The guy's communication style does not really mesh well with television, and that is obviously a requirement of being president in our modern society.

Bush obviously has communications issues as well, but his handlers have avoided snafus like the Kerry quote by not letting Bush 1. answer unscripted questions (without at least polling on the answer) 2. and talk in too much detail about anything.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 24, 2004, 1:06 pm

Change the law so I can become president!

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 24, 2004, 1:10 pm

Winnow wrote:
Thess wrote:
Rivera Bladestrike wrote:For the thousanth time, Arnold can't be president.
Right now they are trying to change the constitution so people not born in the US can become the president.
...and liberals should be leading the charge on this one. This is a great example of something that liberals love to whine about...or will we not hear the howls until a democrat foreign born candidate pops up?

If Hillary was born in France, how fast would this law be changed?

Considering the majority of the house and senate are republican? Never. I agree it is a stupid thing to have in the constitution - I'll definately admit to being a hypocrit liking the fact that it is there to keep Arnold out of being the president.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » September 24, 2004, 3:36 pm

Why exactly is it a stupid idea to not allow foreign born residents of this country to become President?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 24, 2004, 3:53 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Why exactly is it a stupid idea to not allow foreign born residents of this country to become President?

Exactly what I was thinking.

Post by **Sylvus** » September 24, 2004, 4:07 pm

I'd say it's a bad idea because I'd rather have the best person for the job, rather than care which hospital they were born in. If it happens to be someone who was born in another country, so be it.

What is the difference if someone was 3 years old when they moved to the United States or if they were born here? They could take the age requirement out while they are at it, too.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 24, 2004, 4:26 pm

It's phrased that you have to be a "natural born US citizen" so I guess I'm out of the running unless delaying the oath of citizenship until you're 16 is ok. According to the way it's phrased, it looks like if you were born to American parents overseas, you're good to go to be president.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » September 24, 2004, 5:03 pm

Rekaar. wrote:Why exactly is it a stupid idea to not allow foreign born residents of this country to become President?

Why isnt it a smart reason to allow a patriotic american citizen, who happened to be born on a plot of land a couple thousands of miles away to become president, if he has the american peoples support?

Im 90% sure Arnold would get my vote based on his positions atm., he wont run in four years though, hel run in 8, if he does run

Post by **Sylvus** » September 24, 2004, 5:22 pm

I'll pose this question for Rek and Midnyte and whoever else thinks it's not stupid the way the wording currently specifies the eligibility for being president.

Candidate A was born in Montana, lived there until he was 15 years old before moving to France. He lived in France for the next 40 years, where he became rich and world-famous, until he decided to come back to the United States to run for President.

Candidate B was born in Canada and attended high school there. At the age of 19 he came to the United States to go to college. After college, he applied for and became a US citizen. After working his way up the ladder in local politics, he is a well-liked two term governor of the state of Illinois. After his second term is up, he decides the next logical step is to run for president.

Candidate B could not even run for president, while Candidate A could. In my opinion, that's just plain silly.

Which of those two candidates do you think sounds more qualified to run our country?

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » September 24, 2004, 5:25 pm

If they didn't do it back in the late 1700's when prob. a majority of Americans were foreign born they are not gonna do it now. If they didnt do it for someone as great and as Important to this country as Hamilton; They are not going to do it for the terminator or anyone else.

And if you can not think of reasonable arguements against someone born in a foreign country becoming President. Then you need some more years to develope your brain. Its obvious, rationalize with yourself.

To me I understand why...but I also know it will be almost impossible to change. I also feel that its not a big deal atm with someone like Arnold(who I like), but I understand how it could become a problem to allow it someday, like it could of been a problem in the pass.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 24, 2004, 5:26 pm

Sylvus wrote:I'll pose this question for Rek and Midnyte and whoever else thinks it's not stupid the way the wording currently specifies the eligibility for being president.

Candidate A was born in Montana, lived there until he was 15 years old before moving to France. He lived in France for the next 40 years, where he became rich and world-famous, until he decided to come back to the United States to run for President.

Candidate B was born in Canada and attended high school there. At the age of 19 he came to the United States to go to college. After college, he applied for and became a US citizen. After working his way up the ladder in local politics, he is a well-liked two term governor of the state of Illinois. After his second term is up, he decides the next logical step is to run for president.

Candidate B could not even run for president, while Candidate A could. In my opinion, that's just plain silly.

Which of those two candidates do you think sounds more qualified to run our country?

I'd prefer a candidate C, one who was born here as a US Citizen and grew up learning and respecting America's history. I would also hope no party would allow candidate A to even get past the point of the pron stars that run every 4 years for publicity.

Rekaar. · Post by **Rekaar.** » September 24, 2004, 5:33 pm

No immigrant to this country has broken all emotional ties with their homeland. It's a huge liability and one we don't need to bother with, given that there are thousands of people qualified to be the President that were born as citizens.

Are there circumstances? Sure. I don't think it's a rule we need to change.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 24, 2004, 5:51 pm

Candidate C was born in Texas but left the state at the age of 23 because he was gay. By 32 he was a member of congress. 10 Years later, he converted to become a Muslim.

Would you still vote for him now?

Post by **Sylvus** » September 24, 2004, 5:58 pm

Sirton wrote:And if you can not think of reasonable arguements against someone born in a foreign country becoming President. Then you need some more years to develope your brain. Its obvious, rationalize with yourself.

I can't do it, I must need more time to develope my brain. Elucidate me.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 24, 2004, 6:02 pm

And if you can not think of reasonable arguements against someone born in a foreign country becoming President. Then you need some more years to develope your brain. Its obvious, rationalize with yourself.

heh so you don't even bother taking the time to put up a single one? And you claim others dance around the questions?

I'd prefer a candidate C, one who was born here as a US Citizen and grew up learning and respecting America's history.

The history of the US can fit into a timbul. The country is still wearing diapers. My ex gf stood in the living room of my grandfather's farm back home and suddenly went "Wow, this room is older than my country!"

No immigrant to this country has broken all emotional ties with their homeland. It's a huge liability and one we don't need to bother with, given that there are thousands of people qualified to be the President that were born as citizens.

Which is more dangerous than ties to every big company around? And if there are so many well qualified, how come neither side has a candidate worth a shit?

Post by **Sylvus** » September 24, 2004, 6:04 pm

Rekaar. wrote:No immigrant to this country has broken all emotional ties with their homeland. It's a huge liability and one we don't need to bother with, given that there are thousands of people qualified to be the President that were born as citizens.

Are there circumstances? Sure. I don't think it's a rule we need to change.

You don't know that they haven't broken all emotional ties, and so what if they haven't? And in my hypothetical situation I'm supposing that it is THE best candidate. What if you agreed with someone 100% on every single issue, but they had been born in another country and spent one day there before their parents fled to America to escape some sort of persecution. Would you stop supporting it then?

There is no good reason for the rule to be in place. It only allows someone to run for president, they still have to be elected. If they aren't suitable for the job, they probably won't get it.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 24, 2004, 6:09 pm

Lynks wrote:Candidate C was born in Texas but left the state at the age of 23 because he was gay. By 32 he was a member of congress. 10 Years later, he converted to become a Muslim.

Would you still vote for him now?

His choice to become a Muslim would cause me not to vote for him. I don't care that he is gay. I just don't have a high level of respect for people who change religions. I honestly don't have respect for new born christians either. I find it weird when people convert to a religion as if they have had some imaginary revelation showing them the true light. I find it laughable and wouldn't find their character to be one of presidential caliber.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 24, 2004, 6:16 pm

What if he was not religious (aka doubting) then turned towards Islam? Or if he was born a Muslim?

Post by **Sylvus** » September 24, 2004, 6:16 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynks wrote:Candidate C was born in Texas but left the state at the age of 23 because he was gay. By 32 he was a member of congress. 10 Years later, he converted to become a Muslim.

Would you still vote for him now?
His choice to become a Muslim would cause me not to vote for him. I don't care that he is gay. I just don't have a high level of respect for people who change religions. I honestly don't have respect for new born christians either. I find it weird when people convert to a religion as if they have had some imaginary revelation showing them the true light. I find it laughable and wouldn't find their character to be one of presidential caliber.

Err, isn't George Bush a born-again Christian? I'm pretty sure that he found God when he went off the sauce.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 24, 2004, 6:20 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Lynks wrote:Candidate C was born in Texas but left the state at the age of 23 because he was gay. By 32 he was a member of congress. 10 Years later, he converted to become a Muslim.

Would you still vote for him now?
His choice to become a Muslim would cause me not to vote for him. I don't care that he is gay. I just don't have a high level of respect for people who change religions. I honestly don't have respect for new born christians either. I find it weird when people convert to a religion as if they have had some imaginary revelation showing them the true light. I find it laughable and wouldn't find their character to be one of presidential caliber.
Err, isn't George Bush a born-again Christian? I'm pretty sure that he found God when he went off the sauce.

Aye. An aspect I don't respect at all. It's artificial. It gives those who went down the wrong path a get out of jail free card to say I have seen the light now, blah blah blah. It is very similar to the many prisons who have claimed they have found god and all became muslims in prison, alla Mike Tyson.

Post by **Sylvus** » September 24, 2004, 6:23 pm

So you have just said that George Bush's finding God is laughable and that his character is not one of presidential caliber.

Cool.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 24, 2004, 7:03 pm

No immigrant to this country has broken all emotional ties with their homeland.

Horseshit.
Absolute horseshit.

Being of Hungarian heritage I know a lot of Hungarian 'immigrants' who left just before communism and have no desire to ever be associated with Hungary. Once they got all their family over here, they never looked back.

It's easy to turn you back on your country when your country turns their back on you

Midnyte_Ragebringer · September 24, 2004, 8:05 pm

Sylvus wrote:So you have just said that George Bush's finding God is laughable and that his character is not one of presidential caliber.

Cool.

Yep, I did. But, I would still vote for him over Kerry any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.