Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Humor: scrutinizing the candidates

  1. Jul 8, 2004 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 8, 2004 #2
  4. Jul 8, 2004 #3

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Unfortunately for the Democrats the Wahl "Male Grooming Survey" determined that President Bush has the best hair style of the candidates. Kerry is wrong again.
     
  5. Jul 8, 2004 #4
    That would make a great ad contrasteed with something Kerry said just a day ago. Someone asked him something about his ticket compared to Bush's, he outlined differences, then added "And we (Edwards and him) have the best hair!" and then did that retarted laugh of his.
     
  6. Jul 9, 2004 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think, if you were to give out team scores Team Kerry-Edwards would beat Team Bush-Cheney.
     
  7. Jul 9, 2004 #6

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So, when quantifying DIck Cheney's hair, is it indeterminate, or undefined?

    Njorl
     
  8. Jul 9, 2004 #7
    It comes effortlessly. After he did his whinny, did you detect any cracks in that horse face of his?
     
  9. Jul 9, 2004 #8

    amp

    User Avatar

    LOL, funny comic strip, it does illuminate - in the commentary - the uneven, (unfair?), lopsided way the 'conservative' media chooses to portray Mr. Kerry and President Bush.
     
  10. Jul 9, 2004 #9
    I don't even think most Liberals believe that President Bush is given the better treatment between the two candidates. The media isn't exactly kind to Republicans.
     
  11. Jul 9, 2004 #10

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    Then you would be thinking wrong.

    I and most other liberals do indeed believe George Bush has been given better treatment by the media.

    While Bush made any statement he wanted about Iraq, with no critical analysis from the press, the press was hounding John Kerry about expensive haircuts and Botox.

    CNN runs Bush's campaign adds during news segments over and over. They claim it is analysis. Then they don't do any analysis!

    Even after being president for over three years Bush is still benefiting from his "underestimation". No measure of competence is expected of him, so criticizing him is just mean.

    Papers try to be "fair and balanced", even if this means they have to overlook Bush's blunders and make things up about Kerry. Papers are so terrified of the "Liberal media bias" tag that they would rather be inaccurate.

    Njorl
     
  12. Jul 9, 2004 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Yes, look at all the scrutiny given to every single thing said by Kerry, even 30 years ago. Want to guess what Bush was saying and doing at that time ?

    A friend of mine has heard reminiscences from a professor at MIT, who was a close buddy of Bush during their Yale years. If you're Republican, you don't want to know what they were doing then !
     
  13. Jul 14, 2004 #12

    amp

    User Avatar

    I'm independent, Goku43201, old friend do tell what this professor said, do tell indeed.
    BTW, there is a NEW documentary film out called 'OUTFOXED' which gets into the outrageous favoritism of just one media giant.

    Right, THEY (for Jdubya - the military or Bush cronies) even (Accidentally?) destroyed payroll records (done in triplicate as well as stored on micro film) that could have shed light on Bushs' military service.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2004
  14. Jul 14, 2004 #13
    Who are THEY?

    I find it laughable that Ted Turner would go out of his way to support George W.

    No critical analysis? The media has trumped up the NO WMD spiel from Day One. Do you really consider having Ted Koppel read the names of American dead on Nightline as pro-Bush?

    I'll give you Fox News. But the rest of the news outlets have been heavily critical of the Bush Administration.
     
  15. Jul 15, 2004 #14

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I was talking about the build-up to the war. No mainstream press analyzed the Bush case for war in any meaningful way. It was the single most important issue in our country in the last 25 years, and the press accepted everything the administration said without critique. There is every reason to believe that they had genuine doubts, but they refused to act on them. They became a partisan organ of the Bush administration.

    Sure, after the war, when the administration's lies became manifestly obvious, the press could hardly continue to support them. But even now the so-called-liberal-media expect more honesty and intellectual rigor from Michael Moore than they do from George Bush. Have you seen the interviews of Moore? No administration official has ever faced questioning like that. I admit that Moore is a hack. Shouldn't we expect more from our president then we do from a hack? Not according to the "liberal media". They still write articles that they feel sorry for poor Dubya being bullied by Moore.

    Njorl
     
  16. Jul 15, 2004 #15
    Excellent point.

    Even after evidence for all of the Bush justifications for the war have been shown to have been lies or based on errant information, Bush still pretends that he was right, and a great many people do not seem to care about the lies and misinformation.
     
  17. Jul 15, 2004 #16
    Moore is an artist. It pops out ineluctably out of its subject and bias. View the film in abstract, as if it were a rediscovered vestige from an earlier age. Let the other side try to make something equal to it.
     
  18. Jul 15, 2004 #17
    poles say Bush is ahead

    Next week they are going to ask the latvians.

    {it works better as a spoken gag}
     
  19. Jul 15, 2004 #18

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A recent poll (Newsweek, I think) said that Bush's chances were best with Powell as Veep. Fat chance, that happening !
     
  20. Jul 15, 2004 #19
    First of all, I don't want our side to stoop to producing such films.

    Second, being a mere "artist" didn't stop him from winning an Oscar for Best DOCUMENTARY. Care to explain that one away?
     
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2004
  21. Jul 15, 2004 #20
    "stoop"? I guess that means you don't think the idea good.

    What is there to explain away? What is "mere" about being an artist? Oh, the Motion Picture Academy votes based on what the members like, whatever their reasons for it.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Humor: scrutinizing the candidates
  1. Questions for Candidates (Replies: 20)

Loading...