Thanks for not answering the question |
*sigh*
No, I wouldn't object to the 'tastefulness'. When I said that tastefulness doesn't enter into it, I mean I don't see tastefulness being an issue in *any* political ad. Only pertinence. If someone had a valid reason to show images of the holocaust, or hardcore pornography, fine. If you do, though, you better have a damn good reason. Like I said, taste doesn't enter into it.
In other words, it's okay to be tasteless as long as what you say is true. |
True and pertinent. I wouldn't show 9/11 and say "Kerry was wearing a green tie that day".
"What else has happened in the last four years that has to do with images of the World Trade Center?" |
Afghanistan? The Patriot Act, all the national security efforts (that, granted, you don't like much)? Honestly, I would guess that Bush deals with something, no matter how small, every day that he wouldn't have had to had 9/11 not occurred.
I'll ask you. Do you think we would have invaded Iraq if 9/11
hadn't occurred? Whether you call it an 'excuse' or 'related', it still figured into the political environment that brought about the invasion of Iraq. I, for one, was less thrilled with the "containment" after 9/11, especially when Hussein was actively donating money to terrorist organizations and paying the families of suicide bombers.
P.S. I don't have a problem with opinions, I promise. It's just when I say "Yes", and you say "NO!", it is customary to explain why you say no, instead of asking me to reiterate why I say yes, lol. I don't owe you reiteration if you don't put forth something to refute. I dig ya, bulb, don't get the wrong idea.