PDA

View Full Version : Bush Ads Fact Check



DolFan31
07-27-2004, 09:19 PM
Since Bush's ads are 90% negative, I decided to go to a non-parisian site to see what Bush's ads are wrong about. And I found what I was looking for.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Here's some:

Bush Ad Faults Kerry's "Family Priorities"
It highlights stark differences between the two on teenage abortions and morning-after birth control pills in schools.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=219

Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women"
It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=215

Anti-Kerry Ad Misses Context, Distorts Facts
Pro-Bush group repeats misleading attacks on Kerry's defense record.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists
In reality, Kerry favors some of the same "safeguards" as several conservative Republicans.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187

Bush Ad "Doublespeak" Leaves Out Some Context
It quotes negative comments from newspapers, but doesn't mention that they are editorial expressions of opinion.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=186
---------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly suggest liberals,conservatives,democrats,republicans,moderates,and all others to see this site. Its quite interesting. Yes, I only displayed the ones about Bush. There are ones about Kerry, and even Nader. So go ahead and shoot the ones about Kerry. You know Im not going to post them. :D

Another great nonpartisan website:
http://www.realchange.org/

Section126
07-27-2004, 11:12 PM
All those things are factual...they guy has a record...and his record sucks.

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 11:35 PM
All those things are factual...they guy has a record...and his record sucks.

In your ideological opinion..

Section126
07-27-2004, 11:41 PM
In your ideological opinion..



Why do you think that Bush runs ads against Kerry's record?

Because his record is unacceptable to atleast 52% of the country.......That's why....His record sucks.

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 11:42 PM
Why do you think that Bush runs ads against Kerry's record?

Because his record is unacceptable to atleast 52% of the country.......That's why....His record sucks.

Because Bush has nothing good to say about his OWN record as President.

Section126
07-27-2004, 11:45 PM
Because Bush has nothing good to say about his OWN record as President.


Last time I checked...THE PRESIDENT gives 4 speeches a week on different issues and touts his successes...your guy sives 2 a week and touts nothing...he just lobs lies and insults.

PhinPhan1227
07-27-2004, 11:50 PM
Since Bush's ads are 90% negative, I decided to go to a non-parisian site to see what Bush's ads are wrong about. And I found what I was looking for.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Here's some:

Bush Ad Faults Kerry's "Family Priorities"
It highlights stark differences between the two on teenage abortions and morning-after birth control pills in schools.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=219

Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women"
It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=215

Anti-Kerry Ad Misses Context, Distorts Facts
Pro-Bush group repeats misleading attacks on Kerry's defense record.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists
In reality, Kerry favors some of the same "safeguards" as several conservative Republicans.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187

Bush Ad "Doublespeak" Leaves Out Some Context
It quotes negative comments from newspapers, but doesn't mention that they are editorial expressions of opinion.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=186
---------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly suggest liberals,conservatives,democrats,republicans,moderates,and all others to see this site. Its quite interesting. Yes, I only displayed the ones about Bush. There are ones about Kerry, and even Nader. So go ahead and shoot the ones about Kerry. You know Im not going to post them. :D

Another great nonpartisan website:
http://www.realchange.org/


I love factcheck.org. You might want to use it yourself though...ad's which detail KErry's voting record aren't attack ads...those are merely presenting facts. That being said, if Bush WAS running 90% attack ads...have you seen even ONE KErry ad that wasn't an attack on Bush? 90% would suck, but not in comparison to 100%.

DolFan31
07-27-2004, 11:50 PM
Last time I checked...THE PRESIDENT gives 4 speeches a week on different issues and touts his successes...your guy sives 2 a week and touts nothing...he just lobs lies and insults.

PROVE hes lying.

PhinPhan1227
07-27-2004, 11:50 PM
Because Bush has nothing good to say about his OWN record as President.


Um...didn't you just admit that Kerry has said NOTHING about his own qualifications?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:05 AM
I love factcheck.org. You might want to use it yourself though...ad's which detail KErry's voting record aren't attack ads...those are merely presenting facts. That being said, if Bush WAS running 90% attack ads...have you seen even ONE KErry ad that wasn't an attack on Bush? 90% would suck, but not in comparison to 100%.

As a matter of fact, Ive only seen ONE negative Kerry ad.

Ive seen about FOUR negative bush ads.

And Im being totally honest.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 12:06 AM
As a matter of fact, Ive only seen ONE negative Kerry ad.

Ive seen about FOUR negative bush ads.

And Im being totally honest.

Than I take it you've only seen one Kerry ad? Think about it...you haven't seen one word about why Kerry should be President, based on his merits. What else is left to talk about in an ad?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:10 AM
Than I take it you've only seen one Kerry ad? Think about it...you haven't seen one word about why Kerry should be President, based on his merits. What else is left to talk about in an ad?

Using that logic, you havent seen one word about why BUSH should be President.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 12:14 AM
Using that logic, you havent seen one word about why BUSH should be President.


Sure I have. The economy is improving, we've taken out the Taliban, education has improved, Saddam has been eliminated, Al Quida has been severly impaired, tax cuts...the list goes on because Bush can, has, and will continue to talk about what HE has achieved as President. Until Kerry details HIS track record and how that record will make him a good President, he has nothing but attack ads. Again, by your definition of attack ads which is apparently anything which talks about the other guy.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:20 AM
Sure I have. The economy is improving, we've taken out the Taliban, education has improved, Saddam has been eliminated, Al Quida has been severly impaired, tax cuts...the list goes on because Bush can, has, and will continue to talk about what HE has achieved as President. Until Kerry details HIS track record and how that record will make him a good President, he has nothing but attack ads. Again, by your definition of attack ads which is apparently anything which talks about the other guy.

You know any educated liberal can take all those "achievements" and turn them into "failures". Just like what conservatives do to Clinton's record. Those "acheievements" can be viewed as negative by other people. Michael Moore has done this(with facts (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/)). Just like Kerry's track record can be seen as positive as you can see it as negative. Understand?

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 12:25 AM
You know any educated liberal can take all those "achievements" and turn them into "failures". Just like what conservatives do to Clinton's record. Those "acheievements" can be viewed as negative by other people. Michael Moore has done this(with facts (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/)). Just like Kerry's track record can be seen as positive as you can see it as negative. Understand?


Wrong...wrong, wrong, wrong. You can certainly attack Bush's opinion of his achievements. But unless he is referencing John Kerry, ads talking about HIS achievements as President, whether you agree with them or not, are NOT attack ads. You can't make an attack ad WHILE TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF. The definition of an attack ad is an ATTACK on the OTHER guy. For Kerry to NOT make an attack ad, he needs to make an ad which talks about HIS achievements. He needs to talk about HIS record. He needs to do so WITHOUT referencing Bush. This isn't complicated, where am I losing you?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:36 AM
Wrong...wrong, wrong, wrong. You can certainly attack Bush's opinion of his achievements. But unless he is referencing John Kerry, ads talking about HIS achievements as President, whether you agree with them or not, are NOT attack ads. You can't make an attack ad WHILE TALKING ABOUT YOURSELF. The definition of an attack ad is an ATTACK on the OTHER guy. For Kerry to NOT make an attack ad, he needs to make an ad which talks about HIS achievements. He needs to talk about HIS record. He needs to do so WITHOUT referencing Bush. This isn't complicated, where am I losing you?

http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/
http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/

Compare how many negative ads in each.

If you dont want to do the homework yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-17-negative-ad-analysis_x.htm
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/001857.html
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0601-05.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001943928_ads01.html
http://www.the-hamster.com/mtype/archives/001226.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5100453

All basically say:

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush's campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads -- or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:41 AM
Than I take it you've only seen one Kerry ad? Think about it...you haven't seen one word about why Kerry should be President, based on his merits. What else is left to talk about in an ad?

I've seen one 1227! It talks about how his vice Presidential canidate Edwards is the son of a mill worker. FYI his father was the manager of that mill, but that ain't important! Beyond that I just can't really say!

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 12:43 AM
As a matter of fact, Ive only seen ONE negative Kerry ad.

Ive seen about FOUR negative bush ads.

And Im being totally honest.

A few weeks ago, Bush was running negative ads against Kerry almost every night during the 11 PM SportsCenter. I have only seen one Kerry ad, it was today, and it was a positive one.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:45 AM
I've seen one 1227! It talks about how his vice Presidential canidate Edwards is the son of a mill worker. FYI his father was the manager of that mill, but that ain't important! Beyond that I just can't really say!

Oliver...

Its called "introducing yourself to voters". Geroge W. Bush, heard of him? 43rd President? He ran ads in 2000 introducing himself to voters. Bob Dole? Did the same. Bush Sr.,Ronald Regan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, all these Republicans have run ads giving voters background info about them. Just wait for the ads to come where we get to the issues more.

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:46 AM
A few weeks ago, Bush was running negative ads against Kerry almost every night during the 11 PM SportsCenter. I have only seen one Kerry ad, it was today, and it was a positive one.

This is a very negative campaign. IMO either canidate would be an idiot to not defend or even go on the offensive in the neg attack ads. Bush #41 made this mistake, and that's why Clinton became the President. His son learned from that.

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:48 AM
Its called "introducing yourself to voters". Geroge W. Bush, heard of him? 43rd President? He ran ads in 2000 introducing himself to voters. Bob Dole? Did the same. Bush Sr.,Ronald Regan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, all these Republicans have run ads giving voters background info about them. Just wait for the ads to come where we get to the issues more.

Yeah, he introdices his vice Presidential canidate by saying he's the son of a mill worker. He totally leaves out Edward's Senate record.

Sorry, Kerry has yet to introduce himself, because he is too many ppl to make up his mind as to what person he's going to push as the Presidential canidate. He has to bring in a vice Presidential canidate to make him appear more AVG to the AVG voter.

Oliver...

iceblizzard69
07-28-2004, 12:49 AM
This is a very negative campaign. IMO either canidate would be an idiot to not defend or even go on the offensive in the neg attack ads. Bush #41 made this mistake, and that's why Clinton became the President. His son learned from that.

Oliver...


All politicians run negaitve campaigns. I'm not going to deny that Kerry bashes Bush a lot because that is true, and Bush bashes Kerry a lot as well. IMO it's dumb to argue who does more negative campaigning because both do a ton of it. The one Kerry commercial I have seen was a positive one, but I'm sure he has negative ones as well.

ohall
07-28-2004, 12:56 AM
All politicians run negaitve campaigns. I'm not going to deny that Kerry bashes Bush a lot because that is true, and Bush bashes Kerry a lot as well. IMO it's dumb to argue who does more negative campaigning because both do a ton of it. The one Kerry commercial I have seen was a positive one, but I'm sure he has negative ones as well.

I've seen positive ads from Kerry as well, and I've seen a lot of positive ads from Bush as well. But I live in Florida, maybe somebody who lives in a dif part of the country may have a dif experience because they may be gearing their ads dif there.

I would just like to see from Kerry put forward the case as to what seperates him from the President. I've yet to see that ad though. Saying I would create more jobs just doesn't cut it. How would he create more jobs, employ Clinton?

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 12:57 AM
This is a very negative campaign. IMO either canidate would be an idiot to not defend or even go on the offensive in the neg attack ads. Bush #41 made this mistake, and that's why Clinton became the President. His son learned from that.

Oliver...

41 made the mistake of being too negative. So 43 learned from being more negative?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:02 AM
Amazing no one will debate the FACTS Ive posted here saying that Bush has more negative ads than Kerry. Silence. I love it everytime I post facts here no one debates it or they make excuses.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:07 AM
Also some more clippings from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html



Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush's level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, "I'm anticipating it's going to be the most negative campaign ever," eclipsing 1988, West said. "If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in '88."
----------------------------------------------------
But Bush has outdone Kerry in the number of untruths, in part because Bush has leveled so many specific charges (and Kerry has such a lengthy voting record), but also because Kerry has learned from the troubles caused by Al Gore's misstatements in 2000. "The balance of misleading claims tips to Bush," Jamieson said, "in part because the Kerry team has been more careful."
-------------------------------------------------------------
One constant theme of the Bush campaign is that Kerry is "playing politics" with Iraq, terrorism and national security. Earlier this month, Bush-Cheney Chairman Marc Racicot told reporters in a conference call that Kerry suggested in a speech that 150,000 U.S. troops are "universally responsible" for the misdeeds of a few soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison -- a statement the candidate never made. In that one call, Racicot made at least three variations of this claim and the campaign cut off a reporter who challenged him on it.

In early March, Bush charged that Kerry had proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget that would "gut the intelligence services." Kerry did propose such a cut in 1995, but it amounted to about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget and was smaller than the $3.8 billion cut the Republican-led Congress approved for the same program Kerry was targeting.

The campaign ads, which are most scrutinized, have produced a torrent of misstatements. On March 11, the Bush team released a spot saying that in his first 100 days in office Kerry would "raise taxes by at least $900 billion." Kerry has said no such thing; the number was developed by the Bush campaign's calculations of Kerry's proposals.

On March 30, the Bush team released an ad noting that Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax" and saying, "If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year." But Kerry opposes an increase in the gasoline tax. The ad is based on a 10-year-old newspaper quotation of Kerry but implies that the proposal is current.

Other Bush claims, though misleading, are rooted in facts. For example, Cheney's claim in almost every speech that Kerry "has voted some 350 times for higher taxes" includes any vote in which Kerry voted to leave taxes unchanged or supported a smaller tax cut than some favored.


Let the excuses roll.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:11 AM
I've seen positive ads from Kerry as well, and I've seen a lot of positive ads from Bush as well. But I live in Florida, maybe somebody who lives in a dif part of the country may have a dif experience because they may be gearing their ads dif there.

I would just like to see from Kerry put forward the case as to what seperates him from the President. I've yet to see that ad though. Saying I would create more jobs just doesn't cut it. How would he create more jobs, employ Clinton?

Oliver...

You just admitted Clinton created jobs. Congrads. :clap: :clap: :clap:

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:12 AM
41 made the mistake of being too negative. So 43 learned from being more negative?

Oh BOY!

How old were you in 1992? You prob weren't old enough to even change the channel yet.

Trust me Clinton was NEGATIVE in that campaign and Bush #41 did not even respond to the NEGATIVE lies that Clinton was telling, he ignored them. That is why Bush lost that election. He came from a different time, when canidates didn't go where Clinton went. That is what I mean by Bush #43 learned from his dad!

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:13 AM
Amazing no one will debate the FACTS Ive posted here saying that Bush has more negative ads than Kerry. Silence. I love it everytime I post facts here no one debates it or they make excuses.

What's the point to that, Bush has more $ to spend? I agree Bush has more $ to spend. All politicians use negative ads, that's just how it is.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:14 AM
Oh BOY!

How old were you in 1992? You prob weren't old enough to even change the channel yet.

Trust me Clinton was NEGATIVE in that campaign and Bush #41 did not even respond to the NEGATIVE lies that Clinton was telling, he ignored them. That is why Bush lost that election. He came from a different time, when canidates didn't go where Clinton went. That is what I mean by Bush #43 learned from his dad!

Oliver...

Oh boy. What negative lies did Clinton say? And can you prove they were lies?

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:16 AM
You just admitted Clinton created jobs. Congrads. :clap: :clap: :clap:

Of course he did, he worked with a REP led congress and senate, what choice did he have?

As I said what is Kerry's plan, to hire Clinton in some way to help him with our currently booming economy?

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:18 AM
Oh boy. What negative lies did Clinton say? And can you prove they were lies?

Prove that to whom, someone who was prob 5 years old when that took place? Nah, believe it, don't beleive it, no problem to me either way.

However what comes to mind real quick was Clinton's lie about how the country was in a recession. In reality it wasn't, but that didn't stop him from repeating that lie the last 4 months of that campaign.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:19 AM
What's the point to that, Bush has more $ to spend? I agree Bush has more $ to spend. All politicians use negative ads, that's just how it is.

Oliver...

True, but it seems as if you didnt read the entire thread and the point Im making. Bush supporters are saying(and Im yet again paraphrasing, I have to say this now because you guys get all uptight when I quote and paraphrase without warning) "Kerry has more negative ads because he has nothing to run on" when in FACT Bush has MORE negative ads. But I suppose your going to make yet another excuse and totally contridict your side's arguement and NOT say Bush is running more negative ads than Kerry because Bush has nothing to run on.

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:22 AM
Prove that to whom, someone who was prob 5 years old when that took place? Nah, believe it, don't beleive it, no problem to me either way.

However what comes to mind real quick was Clinton's lie about how the country was in a recession. In reality it wasn't, but that didn't stop him from repeating that lie the last 4 months of that campaign.

Oliver...

More excuses. When I ask for proof all you guys do is make excuses.

The country was in a recession.
http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1994/06/art1abs.htm
http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib148/ib148.pdf

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:24 AM
True, but it seems as if you didnt read the entire thread and the point Im making. Bush supporters are saying(and Im yet again paraphrasing, I have to say this now because you guys get all uptight when I quote and paraphrase without warning) "Kerry has more negative ads because he has nothing to run on" when in FACT Bush has MORE negative ads. But I suppose your going to make yet another excuse and totally contridict your side's arguement and NOT say Bush is running more negative ads than Kerry because Bush has nothing to run on.

1st I don't believe anything on the sites you post, I have to make that totally clear. That's not a presonal thing, I just cannot believe they are unbiased sources, meaning the writer who wrote the story.

Without a doubt Kerry has not presented a case as to why he is the better canidate, all he has done is attack his own position on the current war in Iraq. Now if this doesn't explain how doomed your campaign is nothing will.

Bush without a doubt is running negative ads, why it's important which is running more or less is beyond me. I don't care aboout that, and I doubt anyone else does either. But if the other canidate does not respond with a negative ad what happens is they get run over like Bush #41 did with Clinton.

Modern canidates no matter how positive their message may or may not be they have to go negative or they get eaten alive.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:27 AM
1st I don't believe anything on the sites you post, I have to make that totally clear. That's not a presonal thing, I just cannot believe they are unbiased sources, meaning the writer who wrote the story.


Yet more excuses. How many more excuses can I take? Come on, Im all excused-out.

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:29 AM
More excuses. When I ask for proof all you guys do is make excuses.

The country was in a recession.
http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1994/06/art1abs.htm
http://www.epinet.org/Issuebriefs/ib148/ib148.pdf

Please try reading what ppl type better ok?

I said the last 4 months of the campaign. The last 4 months of that campaign the country was not in recession, it was booming. This however did not stop Clinton from continuing to say it was in a recession when it was no longer in recession.

Please don't try and tell me what was going on then, I was actually an adult when these things were happening. I have a very good memory about this, because Clinton totally ticked me off with his constant lie fest during that campaign. Economics was a huge hobby of mine back then. If it wasn't I would have believed the lies he was telling as well. It's a well founded fact the country was well out of its recession when the election was held in November.

Oliver...

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:31 AM
Yet more excuses. How many more excuses can I take? Come on, Im all excused-out.

Whatever floats your boat man.

Oliver...

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:33 AM
Please try reading what ppl type better ok?

I said the last 4 months of the campaign. The last 4 months of that campaign the country was not in recession, it was booming. This however did not stop Clinton from continuing to say it was in a recession when it was no longer in recession.

Please don't try and tell me what was going on then, I was actually an adult when these things were happening. I have a very good memory about this, because Clinton totally ticked me off with his constant lie fest during that campaign. Economics was a huge hobby of mine back then. If it wasn't I would have believed the lies he was telling as well. It's a well founded fact the country was well out of its recession when the election was held in November.

Oliver...

So in your world the Washington Post is liberal and Fox News is Fair and Balanced right? And I saw that you deleted that so I wouldnt take you up on it.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 01:44 AM
http://www.johnkerry.com/tv/
http://www.georgewbush.com/VideoAndAudio/

Compare how many negative ads in each.

If you dont want to do the homework yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-05-17-negative-ad-analysis_x.htm
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/001857.html
http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/headlines04/0601-05.htm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2001943928_ads01.html
http://www.the-hamster.com/mtype/archives/001226.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5100453

All basically say:

I've seen some of the ads which are labeled "attack ads" against KErry. They were straight line lists of Kerry's voting records. How does a list of voting records qualify as an attack? That aside, tell me something...if you have yet to hear anything about what Kerry has done that qualifies him to be PResident, what WAS said in the non-attack ads you saw for KErry? BTW, you ARE aware that Kerry is doing most of his REAL negative spin illegally through shell organizations like moveon.org, right?

DolFan31
07-28-2004, 01:58 AM
I've seen some of the ads which are labeled "attack ads" against KErry. They were straight line lists of Kerry's voting records. How does a list of voting records qualify as an attack? That aside, tell me something...if you have yet to hear anything about what Kerry has done that qualifies him to be PResident, what WAS said in the non-attack ads you saw for KErry? BTW, you ARE aware that Kerry is doing most of his REAL negative spin illegally through shell organizations like moveon.org, right?

They do qualify as attack if you spin it the right way. I already showed you how but I guess Ill do it again.

http://www.factcheck.org

Bush Ad Faults Kerry's "Family Priorities"
It highlights stark differences between the two on teenage abortions and morning-after birth control pills in schools.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=219

Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women"
It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=215

Anti-Kerry Ad Misses Context, Distorts Facts
Pro-Bush group repeats misleading attacks on Kerry's defense record.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists
In reality, Kerry favors some of the same "safeguards" as several conservative Republicans.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187

Bush Ad "Doublespeak" Leaves Out Some Context
It quotes negative comments from newspapers, but doesn't mention that they are editorial expressions of opinion.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=186

------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, yes. He's an experienced Senator from Mass. who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee: two big qualifications.

Voting Record: it depends on whether or not you agree with his record. Plain and simple

His stands on the issues, as listed on his website, I agree with 70%(he supports the Drug War, among some other things I disagree with).

These are the basic qualifications that voters look at. Its about agreeing. Example: some people actually LIKE tax hikes, if it goes towards fixing things that need fixing(national debt, education, health care).

Tell me something, how it is illegal and do you have proof that Kerry is the mastermind of moveon.org? You do know moveon.org was in operation even BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS EVEN ANNOUNCED THEIR NOMINEES BACK IN 2003.

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2004, 10:43 AM
They do qualify as attack if you spin it the right way. I already showed you how but I guess Ill do it again.

http://www.factcheck.org

Bush Ad Faults Kerry's "Family Priorities"
It highlights stark differences between the two on teenage abortions and morning-after birth control pills in schools.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=219

Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women"
It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=215

Anti-Kerry Ad Misses Context, Distorts Facts
Pro-Bush group repeats misleading attacks on Kerry's defense record.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists
In reality, Kerry favors some of the same "safeguards" as several conservative Republicans.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187

Bush Ad "Doublespeak" Leaves Out Some Context
It quotes negative comments from newspapers, but doesn't mention that they are editorial expressions of opinion.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=186

------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, yes. He's an experienced Senator from Mass. who is on the Senate Intelligence Committee: two big qualifications.

Voting Record: it depends on whether or not you agree with his record. Plain and simple

His stands on the issues, as listed on his website, I agree with 70%(he supports the Drug War, among some other things I disagree with).

These are the basic qualifications that voters look at. Its about agreeing. Example: some people actually LIKE tax hikes, if it goes towards fixing things that need fixing(national debt, education, health care).

Tell me something, how it is illegal and do you have proof that Kerry is the mastermind of moveon.org? You do know moveon.org was in operation even BEFORE THE DEMOCRATS EVEN ANNOUNCED THEIR NOMINEES BACK IN 2003.


It's illegal because it violates the election reform laws which the DEMOCRATS pushed through.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040401-124201-5352r.htm

But they know that by the time the FEC can shut them down the damage will already be done.

ohall
07-28-2004, 01:46 PM
So in your world the Washington Post is liberal and Fox News is Fair and Balanced right? And I saw that you deleted that so I wouldnt take you up on it.

No I never said that, and this is the THIRD time I've tried replying to this. Everytime I reply the MBoard dies, so sorry in advance if it crashes again.

It's well established that the washington post is a LIBERAL mouth peice. Just like the Wallstreet Journal is a mouth peice for the REP's. When ppl say FNC is fair and balanced they are talking about compared to the TWO other major national cable news channels, CNN and MSNBC.

Oliver...

Bling
07-28-2004, 02:02 PM
Since Bush's ads are 90% negative, I decided to go to a non-parisian site to see what Bush's ads are wrong about. And I found what I was looking for.

http://www.factcheck.org/

Here's some:

Bush Ad Faults Kerry's "Family Priorities"
It highlights stark differences between the two on teenage abortions and morning-after birth control pills in schools.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=219

Bush Ad Claims Kerry Voted Against "Protections for Pregnant Women"
It's a misleading ad. What Kerry really voted against was the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act."
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=215

Anti-Kerry Ad Misses Context, Distorts Facts
Pro-Bush group repeats misleading attacks on Kerry's defense record.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=209

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists
In reality, Kerry favors some of the same "safeguards" as several conservative Republicans.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=187

Bush Ad "Doublespeak" Leaves Out Some Context
It quotes negative comments from newspapers, but doesn't mention that they are editorial expressions of opinion.
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=186
---------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly suggest liberals,conservatives,democrats,republicans,moderates,and all others to see this site. Its quite interesting. Yes, I only displayed the ones about Bush. There are ones about Kerry, and even Nader. So go ahead and shoot the ones about Kerry. You know Im not going to post them. :D

Another great nonpartisan website:
http://www.realchange.org/


I've actually been monitoring that website for the last 2 months, and I remember that Kerry was more of a liar. I don't know what the margain was, but I remember seeing a lot of lies from Kerry. Of course, I'm pretty sure Kerry has had more ADs.



side note: Anybody from South Florida notice that there aren't any Bush ADs? I haven't seen any. Even FNC had an AD for Kerry.