[U.S.] Political Ads - Here we go again... 12 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Phoenix_22 VIP Member

46 and 2, are just ahead of me

255,785 XP

23rd September 2004

0 Uploads

24,266 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

I hate to skew this topic to one side, but the latest ad from McCain's campaign, frankly, annoys the hell out of me. 2004 gave us ad after ad of arguing politicians and I think Kerry and Bush ended up using the same ad agency.

Anyway, let's start off with the video that finally did me in (I don't know how to post the video in a fancy fashion, sorry about that):

http://www.youtube.com/v/kjvzyFyMO-k&hl=en

Point 1: "Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government."

The two things I want to point out are: A. When did liberal become a bad word? I see it all over the internet, with people calling those who do not share their political beliefs as "liberals" almost like it is a swear word. B. Massive? Really? Maybe my sense of scale is wrong, but massive government implies Soviet Russia and China.

Point 2: "And we would pay -- painful taxes -- skyrocketing taxes:"

I love how the ad makes it seem like we are all about to die. The apocalypse is coming and Obama is Satan, riding in from the highway to hell to kill your family and steal your money. As far as I know, I'm not an oil company, and I certainly don't make enough money to throw me into rich company.

For reference, here's Obama on taxes:

Obama says he would hike several taxes on people making more than $250,000, including the amount they pay on capital gains. Currently, the top income tax rate is 35 percent. Under Obama, that would go back up to 39 percent. Obama's staff told the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center he would raise the rates for people in the top two brackets -- about 2.5 million filers out of 100 million-plus. People in those high tax brackets would see the tax rate on their capital gains hiked from the current 15 percent to 20-28 percent.

Source: Whose tax plan is better for you? Obama vs. McCain :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

Point 3: The stupid picture of the baby at the end. This irks me to no avail, but I suppose it is the perfect image to put fear into families. "Oh, but what about the children, think about the children!" This is politics, not a day care ad, I don't want babies in my political ads, I want content, sourced content preferably!

Point 4: I've noticed that most of Obama's ads do put in sources about what they are saying about McCain. So...why are there no sources here? I'm sure barely anyone will notice that, but there is a difference between running ads with sourced content and unsourced content.

Point 5: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message." The last slide is hilarious, for the last two weeks I have loved how the Republicans slogan has become "real change" or "change is coming," in a sense, the worst knockoff of slogan I've seen at this high a level of attention.

But what really gets me is what both candidates said at the beginning of this primary, that they both want to run "respectful campaigns." McCain reiterated it the other day, have a look for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/v/kHkjmVTxreg&hl=en

To put it simply, if you don't like the "negative aspects" of campaigning, don't put your name at the end of it! Sen. McCain, you're the one running for president, you don't have to approve an ad if you don't like it and it doesn't fit your "nice campaign" that you wanted to run.

To be fair to the other side, if you have any ads of Obama that you wish to rant about, feel free. What I've noticed is McCain's ads are completely off the wall.

Thoughts? Comments?




Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

McCain asked many times to have towhall meetings to stop exactly what you are hating, Obama refused. As republican-ish my feeling about Obama adds allmost seem like I don't care, they say things that seem so meaningless for some reason this time. The more they smear the more I want McCain, kinda wierd.




Scientist Dr. Professor

The Old Man

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

22,336 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

Phoenix_22;4587481 Point 1: "Obama and his liberal congressional allies want a massive government."

The two things I want to point out are: A. When did liberal become a bad word? I see it all over the internet, with people calling those who do not share their political beliefs as "liberals" almost like it is a swear word. B. Massive? Really? Maybe my sense of scale is wrong, but massive government implies Soviet Russia and China.

Liberal became a bad word when they decided to affiliate themselves with the rise of a more socialist government. Middle class America doesn't want a socialist US government. People don't like big government, because big government means more government programs, and more government programs means more taxes. And yes, the Republicans in Washington have had just a big role in the expansion of big government - which is why Middle class America is just as upset with the Republicans as with the Democrats.

Point 2: "And we would pay -- painful taxes -- skyrocketing taxes:"

I love how the ad makes it seem like we are all about to die. The apocalypse is coming and Obama is Satan, riding in from the highway to hell to kill your family and steal your money. As far as I know, I'm not an oil company, and I certainly don't make enough money to throw me into rich company.

For reference, here's Obama on taxes:

Source: Whose tax plan is better for you? Obama vs. McCain :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Barack Obama

Tax plans go beyond just who gets a better tax break. You have to look at how they effect the economy as a whole. Tax breaks for the middle class don't do shit if the economy is in the tank.

Point 3: The stupid picture of the baby at the end. This irks me to no avail, but I suppose it is the perfect image to put fear into families. "Oh, but what about the children, think about the children!" This is politics, not a day care ad, I don't want babies in my political ads, I want content, sourced content preferably!

Huh, imagine that, people concerned about whether they'll be able to afford to raise a family? I know your biggest decision of the week is which block party you want to go to, but in the real, grown-up world, adults have to worry about whether they'll be able to pay their credit card bill or home mortgage this month, if they'll be able to afford their heating bills this winter, or if they'll have enough money in the future to send their kid to college. You see, when you actually have to buy a house, pay the bills and raise a family, the amount of money the government takes from you actually matters. The fact that a government run by Obama would spend billions of dollars more on social programs (that won't help them), then one run by McCain, scares people. They know who gets called on to foot the bill when the government starts spending money left and right.

Point 4: I've noticed that most of Obama's ads do put in sources about what they are saying about McCain. So...why are there no sources here? I'm sure barely anyone will notice that, but there is a difference between running ads with sourced content and unsourced content.

Because there is nothing to source? Sources are only really used when they are using quotes from another person.

Point 5: "I'm John McCain and I approve this message." The last slide is hilarious, for the last two weeks I have loved how the Republicans slogan has become "real change" or "change is coming," in a sense, the worst knockoff of slogan I've seen at this high a level of attention.

But what really gets me is what both candidates said at the beginning of this primary, that they both want to run "respectful campaigns." McCain reiterated it the other day, have a look for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/v/kHkjmVTxreg&hl=en

To put it simply, if you don't like the "negative aspects" of campaigning, don't put your name at the end of it! Sen. McCain, you're the one running for president, you don't have to approve an ad if you don't like it and it doesn't fit your "nice campaign" that you wanted to run.

Are you truly this ignorant?

I approve this message - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago

SeinfeldRules;4587685Are you truly this ignorant?

I approve this message - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He (/staffers) didn't have to authorise the ad to go out.

If you claim to want to run a respectful/clean/positive campaign, and then release an ad that is none of those, then you are reneging on your earlier claim.




GuineaPig

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

505 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

I still don't get why Republicans pretend they are fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservatism has been dead in the States since Reagan, and Republicans still pretend that it's the Democrats who've been piling up the debt with "massive spending" and "massive government".

It's complete B.S. to say the Republicans stand for small government and careful spending. And to claim Obama is for "pork", this is coming after the Bush administration that vetoed a stunning 1 bill, while pushing through the largest amount of pork spending ever. This is after the Bush administration that took the national debt from yearly surpluses under Clinton, and drove the States to almost $10 billion in debt.

I don't know how this myth still persists.

ldb080406.gif (image)

How come the edit button always disappears when you need it?

It should be $10 trillion in debt.

Also interesting to note that the Bush administration had to pass legislation to counter laws in place to prevent the debt from spiraling out of control like this.




Phoenix_22 VIP Member

46 and 2, are just ahead of me

255,785 XP

23rd September 2004

0 Uploads

24,266 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

Quetron;4587574McCain asked many times to have towhall meetings to stop exactly what you are hating, Obama refused. As republican-ish my feeling about Obama adds allmost seem like I don't care, they say things that seem so meaningless for some reason this time. The more they smear the more I want McCain, kinda wierd.[/QUOTE]

I hate that aspect as well. It would have been cool to see both candidates just appearing all over the country together and getting down to the issues. Of course, do you really expect two high-profile politicians exposing themselves to that kind of questioning? Even if Obama had agreed, I'm sure they both would have found a way to get out of some of them.

SeinfeldRules;4587685Tax plans go beyond just who gets a better tax break. You have to look at how they effect the economy as a whole. Tax breaks for the middle class don't do shit if the economy is in the tank.

True, but I don't think taxes were the reason behind the economy going into its downturn, it was a matter of people not knowing how to manage credit and finances. Buying things you can't pay for leads to strain on other people and when gas prices went up and the country stopped the rapid expansion that had been going on since 2002, we get to where we are now.

The point I'm trying to make, is that Obama's tax plan is hardly going to be as desperately insane as the GOP is trying to make it out. Either way though, both tax plans suck.

Huh, imagine that, people concerned about whether they'll be able to afford to raise a family? I know your biggest decision of the week is which block party you want to go to, but in the real, grown-up world, adults have to worry about whether they'll be able to pay their credit card bill or home mortgage this month, if they'll be able to afford their heating bills this winter, or if they'll have enough money in the future to send their kid to college. You see, when you actually have to buy a house, pay the bills and raise a family, the amount of money the government takes from you actually matters. The fact that a government run by Obama would spend billions of dollars more on social programs (that won't help them), then one run by McCain, scares people. They know who gets called on to foot the bill when the government starts spending money left and right.

Oh c'mon now Seinfeld, I'm hardly the type that is going out and partying, freely spending my parent's money. I know fair well what this country is suffering from and why people can't make ends meet.

Does Obama want to spend more money on social programs than McCain? Of course. But when our education system is falling behind many other industrialized nations, we need to do something about it. Besides, do you really think McCain is going to be able to balance government programs and stop out of control spending? If anything, he is just going to end up cutting funding from every single government agency in order to balance the budget.

Are you truly this ignorant?

I approve this message - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For someone so bent on running a fair campaign with "straight-talk" McCain is doing one hell of a job at contradicting that claim.

[QUOTE=GuineaPig;4588081]I still don't get why Republicans pretend they are fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservatism has been dead in the States since Reagan, and Republicans still pretend that it's the Democrats who've been piling up the debt with "massive spending" and "massive government".

It's complete B.S. to say the Republicans stand for small government and careful spending. And to claim Obama is for "pork", this is coming after the Bush administration that vetoed a stunning 1 bill, while pushing through the largest amount of pork spending ever. This is after the Bush administration that took the national debt from yearly surpluses under Clinton, and drove the States to almost $10 billion in debt.

I don't know how this myth still persists.

ldb080406.gif (image)

How come the edit button always disappears when you need it?

It should be $10 trillion in debt.

Also interesting to note that the Bush administration had to pass legislation to counter laws in place to prevent the debt from spiraling out of control like this.

I think most everyone agrees that Bush has done little to win the hearts of this country. It's horrible how someone who is from a party that isn't supposed to spend money and manage finances properly has allowed our national debt to plunge like a rollercoaster and our economy go into a really bad position where tons of government action is needed to bring us out of a recession.




GuineaPig

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

505 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago
Phoenix_22;4589295 I think most everyone agrees that Bush has done little to win the hearts of this country. It's horrible how someone who is from a party that isn't supposed to spend money and manage finances properly has allowed our national debt to plunge like a rollercoaster and our economy go into a really bad position where tons of government action is needed to bring us out of a recession.

But what's the government action?

$800 billion in relief for banks. No thanks.

At least the Canadian government isn't considering bailing out banks.




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago
GuineaPig;4589649At least the Canadian government isn't considering bailing out banks.

No, either we lack the money, or we're not in such a bad state of affairs, considering the TSX ended the week in the positives. Instead the Canadian government always makes some dumb decision, like selling off Petro Canada right before the price of oil took off (sure they didnt know at the time, but it was still going up at the time).

Plus, we're in the early stages of an impromptu election, didn't Harper institute something that set elections every 4 years? Dion is too retarded, or too nice, to remind voters who called this election no one really wanted. I'm not voting, the only candidate in my riding with a chance of winning is the current Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty (I've met him, kind of an asshole), the others don't come close, and will easily lose by thousands of votes, and so my one vote doesn't matter.

We're starting to get the attack ads. They kinda went away with Kim Campbell's "Jean Chretien is a gimp" ads, and are only now coming back, but still can't compare with most US election ads (except perhaps Stephane Dion getting shit on by a puffin from this current election).




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago
Plus, we're in the early stages of an impromptu election, didn't Harper institute something that set elections every 4 years?

Harper did it because the Tories were on track to lose a whole swath of by-elections. It looked like the Greens might win the by-election in Guelph, and it was pretty certain the Liberals would take a couple more off the Tories over the next few weeks.




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago
SeinfeldRules;4587685Liberal became a bad word when they decided to affiliate themselves with the rise of a more socialist government.

And conservative became a bad word when the party associated itself with neo-conservatism, a religious zealot front, a trashed conception of privacy/civil rights and a "we can spend as much as we want" attitude that completely negates the old conservative mindset.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but...

Middle class America doesn't want a socialist US government. People don't like big government, because big government means more government programs, and more government programs means more taxes.

Just like how "conservative" George Bush has us spending billions of dollars in a war, has created such programs as Homeland Security, and has supported intrusive bills like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act? Wait, that doesn't sound very conservative at all...does it?

And yes, the Republicans in Washington have had just a big role in the expansion of big government - which is why Middle class America is just as upset with the Republicans as with the Democrats.

Ah. Ignore the response above. =p

Huh, imagine that, people concerned about whether they'll be able to afford to raise a family? I know your biggest decision of the week is which block party you want to go to, but in the real, grown-up world, adults have to worry about whether they'll be able to pay their credit card bill or home mortgage this month, if they'll be able to afford their heating bills this winter, or if they'll have enough money in the future to send their kid to college. You see, when you actually have to buy a house, pay the bills and raise a family, the amount of money the government takes from you actually matters.

I fail to see how this relates to a social democracy being bad. The middle class in Europe seems to have an equally troubling time paying bills compared to paying bills under a fiscally conservative regime. Do you have evidence that says otherwise?




  • 1
  • 2