Bush Ad Using Fire Fighters Belies Facts; Bush Zeroed ..Programs

IAFF: Bush Ad Using Fire Fighters Belies Facts; Bush Zeroed Out First Responder Programs in Budget Proposals (U.S. Newswire)

The General President of the International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO/CLC, Harold Schaitberger, issued this statement today after President Bush released a new ad using images of fire fighters that imply support for first responders during his term of office.

-- President Bush Zeroed Out First Responder Programs in Budget Proposals, Made Misleading Claims of Budget Increases to Take Credit for Actions of Congress. ...

"The fact is President Bush has refused to provide adequate funding for fire departments protecting military facilities, even after Department of Defense (news - web sites) study identified critical shortages. President Bush has also trampled on the rights of thousands of federal employees who also serve in guard or reserve positions, and who are overseas fighting for the freedoms and rights we enjoy as Americans, only to return to have their basic employee rights stripped by the president's policies which prohibit federal employees at DHS/TSA from organizing and by his recent attempts to take away the bargaining rights of federal employees throughout DoD. ...

Ride Don’t Drive It’s Global Cool

"Like most cops, most firefighters will be voting for President Bush in November. You should be a Regular Guy and vote for him too."

I hear.....and I obey.:crazy:

Second, cops and firefighters are, if the women in the ranks will forgive the expression, Regular Guys. They drink beer, not wine, and certainly not French wine. They played football and baseball in high school, not lacrosse... Regular Guys do not blame Secret Service agents (who are Regular Guys) for knocking them down on the ski slopes, especially when those agents are there to take bullets for them. And Regular Guys relate to and prefer the company of other Regular Guys; they do not invite people like Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck to their conventions. ...

They don't drink French Wine ...?

Nothing is more important than having a "regular guy", as dumb as I am, in the White House. :eyes:

Bush espouses policies that hurt the average Jane or Joe and then masquerades as a candidate who has supported the opposite policies. This is nothing new with Bush, as he claimed credit for initiatives in Texas that he'd actually OPPOSED.

And of course the press has been mostly compliant with this. For example, Bush opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security for the better part of a year, then reversed course, though he did demand limits on the power of union employees of the prospective department. Within months reporters were crediting Bush with the move to create the DHS, and of course the GOP used the DHS as a campaign issue in the 2002 elections.

What are we going to do to combat this lying? It's not as though every organization of miners or firefighters can run corrective ads against Bush's campaign war chest. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS LYING HOUND?

advertises and goes. This Bushco cabal is absolutely without conscience. Of course old Georgie Porgy does NOT know what any of his policies are; small wonder he approved the ad.

Anyone know why the Yahoo article rating for this one isn't working? Or maybe it's a problem on my end.

Try rating this one and see if it sticks when you go back and look at the article.

That one is just begging for a ridiculously hard rebuttal

No child (not) left behind
Tax cuts for the rich
Denial of global warming
Energy plan based on nonrenewable
Encouragement of outsourcing
Unworkable Medicare "card" system
Promotion of a stock market (casino) based social security system

I can't imagine what else these maniacs have up their sleeve if they get elected. I suggest however, that there very well could be a popular uprising if it happens and they continue on this path.

forgotten the move to eliminate overtime
pay for police and firefighters? How could
any of them in their right mind give this
guy another "bite at the apple" and four
more years in which to promote that policy?