Bush ads upset 9/11 families - Page 4

The1calledTKE · #46 03-10-2004, 09:19 PM

The 9/11 Bush ad remixed...

http://www.musicforamerica.org/bushad

The1calledTKE · #47 03-10-2004, 09:23 PM

Howard Stern's take on Bush's 9/11 ad....
http://www.horkulated.com/howard/how...orklog.com.mp3

Kevin · #48 03-11-2004, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by russellwarshay
Its not just about the scale. The WTC is the final resting place for several hundred innocent victims. Part of that site, but not all of it, is being treated as such.

There will be no buildings on the footprint of the twin towers. There is controversy about site infrastructure that lies below, and that is one area of compromise where function won over sentiment. The WTC site is huge, by Manhattan standards, so there is enough space to preserve the footprint of the twin towers, and still replace every square foot of lost commercial space in a way that is dignified and architectually compelling.

There are other reasons why the WTC site received more attention than the bombing in Oklahoma City. The fires at the WTC site burned, at about 1,000º, for about 4 months. It lasted long enough for then Mayor Giuliani to get the majority of the members of Congress to visit the site while it looked, smelled, and tasted like hell on earth. Don't underestimate that visceral experience. Many national, and world leaders commented that they didn't understand the horror of what happened until they visited the site while it was still burning.

Also, the Oklahoma City tragedy did not have the constituency that the WTC site did. Just about every state lost someone. And many of the people who did die, or who are relatives of friends of those who did, are very rich and very powerful.

The media coverage was also very different. New York is the media capital of the entire world. The resources to fully cover the event was in place. Every prominent journalist knew someone who suffered as a result.

A final difference was that the WTC attack was done by foreigners, who declared war against America. As we figured out what happend after 9-11, we realized that there is much more behind the 19 hijackers. What happened in Oklahoma City was a domestic tragedy, without a network that was willing, and able to execute similar tragedies.

So besides the scale, there are the differences that one place is a final resting place for many, congressional sympathy, congressional influence, media influence, and a newly recognized threat (to the public) that is ongoing.

If New York's influence does not seem fair, the consider this. All nations need a financial center, a business center, as well as a media center. New York is all these, and more. Also, New York happens to be the global center of these things too, and that brings benefit to all of America. 9-11 wasn't an attack on a place. It was a symbolic atempt at the decapitation of America. That means that wherever this place should be, it will have the resources to lobby for extra aid.

But there is one more thing that, in my opinion, makes New York worthy of every bit of Federal assistance. New York, for many decades, has given far more money to the Federal government than we have received in return. We have a greater disparity than most, if not all, other states. This disparity has existed to help fund the development of poorer parts of the country, and we never complained. The money that federal government receives is also to pay for national security. The WTC was bombed in 1993 by Al Qaeda. The Federal government had over 8 years to plan, and prevent, and did not do their job. The US government failed us. The least that they can do is help us rebuild.

None of this justifies to me why 9-11 victims deserve cash handouts while OKC bombing victims do not.

Peaches-n-Cream · #49 03-11-2004, 01:28 AM

I think that a lot of the money that the victims' families received were from private donations, not government money. The family that I know who lost their son used the money that they received to begin a scholarship foundation. I have heard of other families doing the same thing. I think that they are trying to take the pain of their loss and turn it into something positive.

I really don't know much about what happened in Oklahoma City regarding money. I remember watching television and thinking that it was probably the worst thing that I would ever see happen in the US. Sadly, I was wrong. Terrible, violent things happen all over the world for reasons that I will never comprehend. Perhaps because of the television coverage, September 11th resulted in an outpouring of compassion and generosity from all over the United States and the world. Funds were started, and people donated money. I am not sure why that didn't happen in Oklahoma City. I am actually surprised to learn that it didn't.

Kevin · #50 03-11-2004, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peaches-n-Cream
I think that a lot of the money that the victims' families received were from private donations, not government money. The family that I know who lost their son used the money that they received to begin a scholarship foundation. I have heard of other families doing the same thing. I think that they are trying to take the pain of their loss and turn it into something positive.

I really don't know much about what happened in Oklahoma City regarding money. I remember watching television and thinking that it was probably the worst thing that I would ever see happen in the US. Sadly, I was wrong. Terrible, violent things happen all over the world for reasons that I will never comprehend. Perhaps because of the television coverage, September 11th resulted in an outpouring of compassion and generosity from all over the United States and the world. Funds were started, and people donated money. I am not sure why that didn't happen in Oklahoma City. I am actually surprised to learn that it didn't.

No, the government has set aside money for people that don't pursue legal action against anyone for their losses. It's a pretty large sum of money.

That's on top of the outpouring of compassion (most of it was redirected towards other efforts) which is another discussion entirely.

Rudey · #51 03-11-2004, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
No, the government has set aside money for people that don't pursue legal action against anyone for their losses. It's a pretty large sum of money.

That's on top of the outpouring of compassion (most of it was redirected towards other efforts) which is another discussion entirely.

If you have a desire to vent about 9-11 victims being undeserving of money, create another thread about it. It seems you're ruining this thread. Kevin you wouldn't want to sidetrack a thread now would you?

-Rudey

Peaches-n-Cream · #52 03-11-2004, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
No, the government has set aside money for people that don't pursue legal action against anyone for their losses. It's a pretty large sum of money.

That's on top of the outpouring of compassion (most of it was redirected towards other efforts) which is another discussion entirely.

This is the first that I have heard of this. I thought that the money was mainly from donations and fundraising. What is the source of your information? I'll google it when I have time.

AGDee · #53 03-11-2004, 07:45 AM

They were definitely paid by a government fund, IF and only IF they agreed not to sue. Some didn't take it. There were disputes about how they determined each person's "worth" as well.

Rudey · #54 03-11-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AGDee
They were definitely paid by a government fund, IF and only IF they agreed not to sue. Some didn't take it. There were disputes about how they determined each person's "worth" as well.

So let them sue. I'm sure they'd be fine winning in lawsuits. Federal money came from FEMA I think which distributes to a variety of disasters and not just 9-11 victims. Over 3 billion was collected by over 500 charitable orgs in 37 states and 3 countries - much of it not just to the victims or families but to the city; often some of the charity was funnelled into other areas that had nothing to do with 9-11.

-Rudey
--Again, if you people are so against 9-11 victims being compensated create a thread for it

sugar and spice · #55 03-12-2004, 06:38 PM

9/11 Images Said Inappropriate by Voters

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Undecided voters, by a 2-1 margin, feel it was inappropriate for President Bush's re-election campaign to use images from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in a television commercial, according to a poll released Friday.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../bush_ads_poll

DeltAlum · #56 03-13-2004, 02:39 PM

I think I'm going to unplug my TV until after the election.

The Republican media machine has reached new lows remarkably early, and I have little doubt that the Democrats will soon follow. (If they can find the money)

Sorry, but I agree that it was wrong to use the Ground Zero footage in one of the original TV spots. I would not have had as big of a problem if the footage had been of Bush actually on the scene -- but even then, using a national tragedy for personal advancement strikes me as wrong.

The next round of commercials accuses Senator Kerry of being in favor of a huge tax increase ($900 Billion I think was the number). Later, the people behind the spot admitted that the number came from their calculation of how much it would cost to fund a program Kerry is in favor of -- Medicare, I think. That's a lot different than proposing a tax increase.

(Diverging -- although I simply don't understand how Federal programs and wars and such are supposed to be funded when the mantra is tax cuts and no new taxes. Sooner or later, the math simply doesn't work -- and someday we have to figure out how to decrease the HUGE national debt.)

Anyway, I'm not sure I'm ready for eight months of attacks, thinly veiled lies and half truths.

deuika · #57 03-14-2004, 10:34 PM

Well, we all knew that 9/11 was going to become political, this is AMERICA! Eveything becomes political. It was disrespectul for Dubya to use those images, he said he didn't want the nation to live in fear, but he's constantly reminding us of 9/11. Dubya is again, confused.

DeltAlum · #58 03-15-2004, 12:15 PM

I think we may see a lot of things used in commercials backfire this year. It won't be pretty.

deuika · #59 03-15-2004, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
I think we may see a lot of things used in commercials backfire this year. It won't be pretty.

Yeah this campaign is gonna be UGLY!
But then, they'll "find" Osama around the end of October and the libs won't have anything to complain about so we will again be suckered in by the the cons.

Kevin · #60 03-15-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deuika
Yeah this campaign is gonna be UGLY!
But then, they'll "find" Osama around the end of October and the libs won't have anything to complain about so we will again be suckered in by the the cons.

The fact that so many on the left are saying that any success that George Bush has would be "staged" is almost hilarious. It's scary that y'all actually would believe something like this.

Especially when there are FRENCH Generals speaking to reporters (see another thread) -- reported by Reuters that French troops have been close to apprehending Bin Laden.

Yep.. now the French are in bed with GWB.