Democrats claim exclusive use to Firefighters

03/05/2004 02:58:18 PM · #1

The Democrats are howling that Bush is using images of firefighters from the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in his campaing ads. Harold Schaitberger, the General President of the International Association of Firefighters, said that "I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those fire fighters in the September 11 attacks."
What most ( liberal ) news reports FAIL to state when quoting Harold Schaitberger, is that he is not only General President of the IAFF, but also the co-chair of the Kerry for President campaign, and appears regularly with Kerry on the Campaign Platform ( as in this photo:

from the official IAFF Website ).

Those Politicians. You just gotta love 'em.

Ron

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/05/2004 03:25:03 PM · #2

damn polititions.. it should be clark damnit!

TommyMoe21

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

03/05/2004 03:45:59 PM · #3

Maybe that explains why Bush cut $700 million from the federal 1st responders budget, but he's building fire stations in Iraq.

Neuferland

Google Pixel 2

03/05/2004 03:49:30 PM · #4

Bush is cashing in on 9/11 to further his political career after he said to do such a thing would be wrong. The firefighters and families of the victims of 9/11 are disgusted by said usage. I have never hidden the fact that I can't stand Bush. I can't stand the way he talks, looks, acts, there is nothing about the man I can find to like and I have tried, really tried in the past 4 years. The Democrats aren't claiming exclusive rights to anything, the firefighters are standing up and saying, "ENOUGH!" and backing the candidate they think will do the most good for them, just like every other group in this nation will do over the next 8 months.

Deannda
Part of the ABB (ANYONE BUT BUSH) Camp

Message edited by author 2004-03-05 15:50:11.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/05/2004 04:23:38 PM · #5

Originally posted by RonB:

What most ( liberal ) news reports FAIL to state when quoting Harold Schaitberger

I saw the story on two news outlets (NBC & PBS) and they both mentioned his position as head of the firefighters union. The idea of a liberal bias in the media is a myth promoted by the radical right. Why can't the firefighters be the ones to decide who gets to use their image in the campaign?

Russell2566

03/05/2004 04:40:49 PM · #6

Originally posted by coolhar:

The idea of a liberal bias in the media is a myth promoted by the radical right.

I'm gonna be a jerk and just say are you stupid? The "myth" of liberal media is a radical right wing dream??? So I'm guessing you've never turned on a TV in your entire life...

It floors me when I hear people say that the media is not MOSTLY left. Next you'll be telling me that the education system in our country (USA) isn't run by a bunch of left wing 1960's left overs!!! hahhahaa

Also: The democrats are just pissed off they can't use 9-11 in their ads. I'm sure Clintont cried many a night after 9-11... Not because it happened, but because it didn't happen when he was in office.

Message edited by author 2004-03-05 16:44:18.

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

03/05/2004 04:43:18 PM · #7

Originally posted by TommyMoe21:

Maybe that explains why Bush cut $700 million from the federal 1st responders budget, but he's building fire stations in Iraq.

Take a deep breath.
First of all, the budget has not been cut. It hasn't even been voted on. The reduction in funding is only a PROPOSAL.
Secondly, Bush can't cut the budget, anyway. Only CONGRESS can do that. And, in all likelihood, they won't. See This Article from yesterday's Washington Times.

Originally posted by coolhar:

Originally posted by RonB:
What most ( liberal ) news reports FAIL to state when quoting Harold Schaitberger

I saw the story on two news outlets (NBC & PBS) and they both mentioned his position as head of the firefighters union. The idea of a liberal bias in the media is a myth promoted by the radical right. Why can't the firefighters be the ones to decide who gets to use their image in the campaign?

1) Yes, but they DIDN't mention that he was a high ranking member of Kerry's campaign staff.
2) For the same reason that the Veterans of the Vietnam war don't get to decide whether Kerry can use THEIR image in the campaign. Veteran Glen Lackey has this to say:

"I know dozens of retired military professionals. None of them support you - there is a reason for that. They all served honorably and well, and they all believe that you did not. I know war heroes, and your, sir, are no war hero."

You can read the entire text of his letter to Mr. Kerry in This article.

Ron

coolhar

03/05/2004 04:54:19 PM · #8

You guys really need to get out more. If you get your news from Rush, Fox, and the Wash Times you'll never get an accurate idea of what is going on in America. If your head is that far to the right everything beyond moderate Republican will look far away to you.

And please, if we must degrade this photography site with harsh political talk, can we at least keep the language on a high-road level.

Clinton can speak for himself. He doesn't need you to tell us what you think is in his head.

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

03/05/2004 04:58:25 PM · #9

Originally posted by Russell2566:

I'm sure Clintont cried many a night after 9-11... Not because it happened, but because it didn't happen when he was in office.

ummm...Clinton got re-elected without needing residual emotions from 9-11.

and if i hear gw say "let's roll" one more freaking time i'm going to scream. nothing like co-opting a campaign slogan from a dying man.

*edited to insert missing word (without)

Message edited by author 2004-03-05 17:00:00.

03/05/2004 05:27:55 PM · #10

Originally posted by coolhar:

You guys really need to get out more. If you get your news from Rush, Fox, and the Wash Times you'll never get an accurate idea of what is going on in America.

I'd love to have you tell us something that Rush, Fox, and/or the Wash. Times said that was NOT true, or, conversly what WAS true that they failed to mention.
I think that's only fair, since I took the time to point out what the liberal media failed to mention. Or do you dispute that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats and the Republicans had a horse race. The Republican horse won.

The conservative media ( Rush, Fox, the Washington Times, etc. ) reported:

The Republican's Horse Won the Race.

That's how the conservative media reports the truth. The plain truth.

The liberal media ( ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, the N.Y. Times, etc. ) reported:

The Democrat's horse finished in Second Place, but the Republican's horse came in next to last.

That's how the liberal media reports the truth. It's technically the truth, but it's always presented with an overriding bias that plays upon the impressionability of the uninformed.

Ever notice that Rush, Hannity, et.al. have no liberal counterparts - that is, no nationally syndicated liberal talk-show hosts? Did you ever stop to wonder why that is? Think about it. What would a liberal talk-show host do if a caller asked them to back up the allegation that Bush lied? Just prove ONE lie? I know I asked, several days ago, and I'm still waiting for the answer.

Ron

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

03/05/2004 05:34:15 PM · #11

ronb has all the answers.

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

03/05/2004 05:43:39 PM · #12

RonB does seem to have the answers... Every time the NY Times reports on a homicide bombing in Israel that kills 20 people, for example, their story reads: "Bomb destroys bus in Israel today.". And when an Israeli or American bomb destroys an Al Queda target and unfortunetely kills innocents nearby, their story reads: "US bomb kills muslim women and children today.".

What kind of reporting is this? Nobody even things twice about how these liberal "news medias" word their stories. The stories should have read:

"Arab terrorists kill 20 Israeli's on bus today".

And

"US attach on Al Queda headquarters. 10 innocents also killed."

Think about what you are listening to and reading in these "rags" like the NYTimes, and how the story is presented to you. RonB is 100% right.

03/05/2004 05:54:15 PM · #13

Originally posted by Neuferland:

. . . the firefighters are standing up and saying, "ENOUGH!" and backing the candidate they think will do the most good for them, just like every other group in this nation will do over the next 8 months.
Deannda
Part of the ABB (ANYONE BUT BUSH) Camp

You are right, Deannda. And it is the goal of the Democrat's political campaign to convince everyone to do just that. They hope that every "group" backs the candidate that they think will do the most good for "them" ( and to hell with everyone else ).

My question is: Why can't every group back the candidate that they think will do the most good for "the country" and not just for "them".

It certainly appears that Kerry is the man who is promising that he will do the most good for all of the "thems" out there, but I still think that Bush is the man who will do the most good for "the country".

I'm sorry for those who are so short sighted that they would sacrifice the future of the entire country for a little less struggle or stress in their own lives today.

Ron

03/05/2004 05:54:45 PM · #14

i was being sarcastic..

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/05/2004 06:26:40 PM · #15

Ron & Chris

Firstly I entirely agree with you about Left wing media bias.

But have you ever stopped to consider how ludicrious it sounds to believe that the side that is saying what you believe to be true are all up standing, unbiased straight reporters, and that only the other side are manipulating the facts ?

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

03/05/2004 06:28:08 PM · #16

Kerry's boasted his vietnam record for political gain. Shouldn't that be offensive to people that lost family members there?
The movie "Pearl Harbor" was made just to make some money (not even for political gain). Was anyone offended?
HYPOCRITS! I think they'd be offended at any ad Bush put out.

Kerry's voting record and non-moving forehead offend me.
Anyone see the photo of him trying to catch a football with his eyes closed? He wants to be the most powerful man in America and he's afraid of the ball! That offends me too.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/05/2004 06:29:55 PM · #17

Originally posted by louddog:

And what relevence does that have to what Bush has done ? Its nice and all to avoid the question, but it would be interesting to hear your opinions on what Bush has done in those adverts.

LoudDog

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

03/05/2004 06:36:01 PM · #18

I haven't seen the ad, but I'm guessing he was trying to show how he reacted to something that happened while he was president?

It's okay for Kerry to boast his 3 months of military service in vietnam. Why can't Bush boast about something he did, or something that happened while he was president? Both used the death of others for political gain, not just Bush.

Is it maybe because at that time Bush had a 90% approval rating and the dems don't want anyone to think back about that time?

Azrifel

Nikon Coolpix P340

03/05/2004 06:37:32 PM · #19

Originally posted by Russell2566:

Also: The democrats are just pissed off they can't use 9-11 in their ads. I'm sure Clintont cried many a night after 9-11... Not because it happened, but because it didn't happen when he was in office.

American politics are incredibly sick.

03/05/2004 06:39:21 PM · #20

Originally posted by Azrifel:

American politics are incredibly sick.

unfortunetly, that pretty much sums it up :/

Neuferland

Google Pixel 2

03/05/2004 08:05:59 PM · #21

Originally posted by RonB:

My question is: Why can't every group back the candidate that they think will do the most good for "the country" and not just for "them".

It certainly appears that Kerry is the man who is promising that he will do the most good for all of the "thems" out there, but I still think that Bush is the man who will do the most good for "the country".

I'm sorry for those who are so short sighted that they would sacrifice the future of the entire country for a little less struggle or stress in their own lives today.

Ron

A little less struggle or stress? My stress level has nothing to do with Bush, my financial struggle on the other hand, when I see the deficit run up and up and up and think that my grandchildren's children will be paying off the immediate threat that was NOT there in Iraq, when I think of the lies that Bush has told this country, when I think of the damage he has done to the reputation of America throughout the world, that is a struggle to hold my head up high as an American and proudly say I'm an American. This is from another site and I think it fits this thread very well:

I think it is a huge mistake for Bush to introduce 9-11 into the election fight. As such, he has made it fair game for the Democrats.
I can see the attack ads already.

Lewinski investigation: 100 million dollars (or however much)
Money spent on Iraq turkey dinner: 20 million dollars
Money spent on 9-11 investigation: 3 million dollars

Bush vacations on his ranch from 2001-2004: 6 months
Total time spent raising campaign funds: 4 months
Time spent on the 9-11 investigation: 1 hour

Knowing the priorities of the president: PRICELESS.

Bush has skeletons in the closet. He must have something very embarrassing to conceal or he wouldn't stonewall the 9-11 investigation.
Now he has given the Democrats free license to go after that.
It's going to be an interesting year.

Here is the link to the original post: Subject: 9-11 and the campaigns

I am all for taking care of this country and those at home which is why I feel it very important to get a president who does care about this country and not lining his pockets and those of all his friends. It's time for a change.

There have been so many cutbacks to programs that help others, afterschool programs, babysitting aid, just two that have directly affected either my family or friends. It's time to take care of our own.

Deannda

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/05/2004 08:47:25 PM · #22

Originally posted by coolhar:

Public domain. Anyone can use it. (IMO and AFAIK) And what Ron was saying the very liberal media failed to point out was his very close link to Kerry. What hypocrits...

ScottK

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

03/05/2004 08:53:15 PM · #23

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

ronb has all the answers.

RonB is becoming my new hero. Watch out Rush... :)

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

03/05/2004 10:58:28 PM · #24

So what if the IAFF is with Kerry??? I mean, come on...the whole big business corporate world is in bed with Bush. Just look at the difference in how much money Bush has had contributed to his campaign and how much Kerry has. I think there's more than a 100 million dollar difference. And you conservatives are crying because the IAFF is with Kerry? Give me a break!

EVery time that Bush or Cheney go out to talk they hold these expensive fund raiser dinners with big business types. Let's get real...the playing field is heavily weighed for bush.

YOu think the NY Times is liberal? hahaha...Rush, Hannity and the rest of those idiots have you all brainwashed.

ScottK