![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
And yes, I knew you were being facetious... But those courses were hard work! BTW, if you don't mind, would you please drop me a line at the SEmods address, so we have yours?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
You should reconsider your moral sense if you can't see that using victims for political gain is wrong.
Thanks,
Dan
since your political bias is so obvious, I don't think you're in a position to make that moral judgement.
Your moral judgment has failed you in this area. Perhaps you should remove the blinders you have concerning bush's activities.
It will be hard for you, but good luck.
Dan
Hi, Dan.
Can a tiger change its stripes? Surely you remember "Willie Horton?" Though on second thought, there they only showed Willie, not his victim...
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
.
Hi, James.
Surely you can see that those are two very different questions? I'm sure lots of victims' families (in lots of types of crimes) appreciate justice being done, but would be appalled by their loved one's grave being featured in a political ad. And that's how many families see the WTC, as was clear during the recent architectural competition from their adverse reactions to the site being returned to commercial use. If Bush had a campaign ad with someone talking about "he brought our country together and took the war to the terorists after the 9/11 attacks," there wouldn't be much criticism about "politicizing the tragedy." For all Karen Hughes' protestations, the way he chose to do it really is tasteless.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
I still haven't seen the ads, so can't comment directly on them.
Interesting thing about the victims objections I will mention. I'm working a midnight shift right now, and in the canteen snack machine room they normally keep CNN running. They've had families of dead in the towers on that were on both sides of the issue. So while the question of taste may be one that will vary for each person, I'm not sure without sometype of large survey of victims and families who can be said to be speaking for them.
Without some basis in numbers, having seen half dozen arguing on either side on CNN, I can't accept either as speaking for an overwhelming majority.
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
But the question isn't so simple, since some of the families feel that it does good for the memory, to keep people from forgetting or dismissing what happened to their loved ones.
At least, that is what some on the bit of newscast I saw seemed to be saying. In that case, an blanket condemnation of the ads because they offend the victims is not entirely correct.
If we censor everything that someone claims offensive without exception, then we might as well shut this forum down now hadn't we? in fact, we might as well shut down our entire government, because everything about it offends someone.
As I said, I haven't seen the ads, so I didn't comment on them directly, just that there was disagreement among families of the victims as tho whether they were appropriate or not.
Looks like politics as usual by both sides to me.
RogerNC
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
some victims don't like while others do--whose rights are paramount?
The ads were tasteful reminders and it should be noted that the "nonpartisan" firefighters had already endorsed Kerry before thinking this supposed "offense" is not of a political and partisan nature.
Are you saying that the family members who are saying they are offended by bush's outrageous behavior are lying? That is truly offensive.
Dan
who take offense?
Is 10% ok? 25%?
What's the limit?
After all, their desires are every bit as valid as those who are upset.
Hi, Ed.
The key point is that he's shown himself to be callous, and not terribly Presidential. Look at what Karen Hughes had to say (pun intended) on the morning news shows today:
Bush Campaign Defends Ads With 9/11 Images >>"With all due respect, I just completely disagree, and I believe the vast majority of the American people will as well..." Hughes said the ads are a tasteful reminder of what the country has been through the last three years. <<
Tasteful? According to whom? Anytime your campaign ads become a campaign issue, it's time to fire your media consultants!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
issue out of the color of President Bush's shirt if they can.