PDA

View Full Version : Who hates political attack ads?



Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 06:44 AM
I keep hearing about how the voters hate negative campaigns, that we are all tired of mud slinging and attack ads.

We are? I love negative political ads. I want to know about voting records, I want to know when they have changed thier stances. I want to know if they have taken money from lobbiests. I want to know about possible criminal activity.

The uglier things get the more I feel like I am seeing the real candidate. Who are these people who are tired of it, who don't want to see campaigns to negative?

Thommy Melanson
12-30-2007, 06:47 AM
I'd rather see a scathing ad attacking an opponent's voting record then, say, a white bookcase underlit to resemble a cross during a slow camera pan.

Marc Lombardi
12-30-2007, 06:48 AM
Me...especially since 95% of the crap said in those ads is either false, misrepresented "facts" or pointless to the real issues.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 06:55 AM
Me...especially since 95% of the crap said in those ads is either false, misrepresented "facts" or pointless to the real issues.

How is that different from the positive, "I promise to bring change, I feel your pain and shall heal this nation" ads?

greg donovan
12-30-2007, 06:57 AM
How is that different from the positive, "I promise to bring change, I feel your pain and shall heal this nation" ads?

i hate those too.

Foolish Mortal
12-30-2007, 06:58 AM
Because the attack ad is about; "Why that guy sucks", rather than, "Why I should be the candidate to vote for".

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 06:59 AM
Because the attack ad is about; "Why that guy sucks", rather than, "Why I should be the candidate to vote for".

I want to know why that guy sucks.

AAlgar
12-30-2007, 07:03 AM
What an odd thread. Expecting a lot of "I don't!" answers?

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 07:15 AM
What an odd thread. Expecting a lot of "I don't!" answers?

Yes, for some reason I never really believed it was the majority of voters who disliked the attack ads. If it was they wouldn't do them every time, would they?

kylethoreau
12-30-2007, 07:22 AM
it's petty and childish so it's exactly what i would expect from politicians. To change it would undermine the very reality of our country dammit.

think about our reality!!!!






:mistrust: ok even I don't know what the hell that was about:surrend:

xyzzy
12-30-2007, 07:23 AM
They provide no real information. Their primary objective (which they accomplish well) is to depress voter turnout by increasing apathy.

Marc Lombardi
12-30-2007, 07:23 AM
I want to know why that guy sucks.
And you want to learn it from the guy(s) running against him? That's like asking Marvel why they think DC sucks.

jess
12-30-2007, 07:27 AM
It's just part of it. Even the candidates that try to stay out of it get their names squashed into the ground. Then they kind of have to retaliate. It's a vicious, petty cycle. I don't think political ads, positive or negative represent the candidates at all, really. If you're voting for someone based solely on their tv ads, you probably should just sit it out anyway, in my opinion.

Marc Lombardi
12-30-2007, 07:28 AM
The only thing I hate more than politcal attack ads on TV are the ones you get in the mail. Specifically the 147 pieces you get in the week leading up to the election.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 07:31 AM
They provide no real information. Their primary objective (which they accomplish well) is to depress voter turnout by increasing apathy.

I think information like voting records and where donations are coming from is real information.

As far as depressing voter turnout I don't think attack ads deter anyone who takes the political process seriously. I'm sure it does drive away casual voters but I don't really consider those people a loss.

xyzzy
12-30-2007, 07:34 AM
I think information like voting records and where donations are coming from is real information.

It's not, because the source is untrustworthy.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 07:34 AM
And you want to learn it from the guy(s) running against him? That's like asking Marvel why they think DC sucks.

Who else is likely to dig up the dirt on a candidate other than his opponents?

My faith in independant investigative reporting isn't really that strong. I think if it wasn't for a politicians opponents bringing things to the publics attention alot would stay hidden.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 07:36 AM
It's not, because the source is untrustworthy.

There isn't just the one source. After the accusation is made the person attacked will defend themselves, the issue will be brought up in interviews and debates, news reporters will investigate independantly, ect.

Someone has to bring the issue up to begin with though.

jess
12-30-2007, 07:39 AM
There isn't just the one source. After the accusation is made the person attacked will defend themselves, the issue will be brought up in interviews and debates, news reporters will investigate independantly, ect.

Someone has to bring the issue up to begin with though.

i agree with that. at least it gives someone the chance to dig deeper and find out if there's any validity to the accusations. you can usually tell if someone's lying when they're confronted with something uncomfortable.

but voting based solely on the ads? stay home.

Marc Lombardi
12-30-2007, 08:27 AM
i agree with that. at least it gives someone the chance to dig deeper and find out if there's any validity to the accusations. you can usually tell if someone's lying when they're confronted with something uncomfortable.

but voting based solely on the ads? stay home.
You took the words out of my mouth. If you base your vote solely on attack ads your vote is ill informed. Then again that probably explains the last 7 years for this country. Stupid bullshit Swiftboat crap.

ScotiaNova
12-30-2007, 08:30 AM
Political attacks are what the late ex-president Bhutto was on the receiving end of.
Hurting your oppositions fealings are just pettulance.

Ethan Van Sciver
12-30-2007, 08:32 AM
I don't like them. I think it's time to return to positive, idealistic political ads, like a few I've seen from Bobby Kennedy and Eisenhower. They show more leadership.

greg donovan
12-30-2007, 08:35 AM
I think information like voting records and where donations are coming from is real information.

As far as depressing voter turnout I don't think attack ads deter anyone who takes the political process seriously. I'm sure it does drive away casual voters but I don't really consider those people a loss.

there is a HUGE part of the problem.

not enough people care about the political process to dig deeper and make an informed opinion through their own research.

badpoet
12-30-2007, 08:37 AM
They work whether people like them or not, plain and simple. I do enjoy writing them :D

WillieLee
12-30-2007, 08:45 AM
I don't like them. I think it's time to return to positive, idealistic political ads, like a few I've seen from Bobby Kennedy and Eisenhower. They show more leadership.

Vote for EVS for honest and open government. Let's make tomorrow better than today.

Ethan Van Sciver
12-30-2007, 08:48 AM
Vote for EVS for honest and open government. Let's make tomorrow better than today.

Pictures of me in a shirt and tie, throwing a frisbee to my kid...petting a dog, having some ice cream. Burning a cross. Around the dinner table with my family.

CPA
12-30-2007, 08:49 AM
I think think the biggest problem with all these people is that they become so concerned with each other or are so busy pandering that they lose sight of what inspires people. Great leaders have vision and are not concerned with giving people things or attacking other people. Attack ads are good when they contrast visions between and among the candidates. Vision inspires.

jess
12-30-2007, 08:50 AM
Pictures of me in a shirt and tie, throwing a frisbee to my kid...petting a dog, having some ice cream. Burning a cross. Around the dinner table with my family.

that is an awesome visual, sir :lol:

WillieLee
12-30-2007, 08:50 AM
Pictures of me in a shirt and tie, throwing a frisbee to my kid...petting a dog, having some ice cream. Burning a cross. Around the dinner table with my family.

Vote for EVS. Let's bring the Democrats back to their roots.

Thommy Melanson
12-30-2007, 08:51 AM
Pictures of me in a shirt and tie, throwing a frisbee to my kid...petting a dog, having some ice cream. Burning a cross. Around the dinner table with my family.

That's not funny.

You never eat ice cream before dinner!

Ray G.
12-30-2007, 08:59 AM
I like the candidates exposing each other. What I don't like is when it gets into really petty bullshit. I find it's just as bad in local races if not worse.

greg donovan
12-30-2007, 09:01 AM
Pictures of me in a shirt and tie, throwing a frisbee to my kid...petting a dog, having some ice cream. Burning a cross. Around the dinner table with my family.

do you have 3 arms or something?

Ethan Van Sciver
12-30-2007, 09:02 AM
do you have 3 arms or something?

These are quick cuts.

greg donovan
12-30-2007, 09:04 AM
These are quick cuts.

all three things at once with a mystery third arm would get you more votes.

the 3rd arm worked out well for Zaphod.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 09:27 AM
You took the words out of my mouth. If you base your vote solely on attack ads your vote is ill informed. Then again that probably explains the last 7 years for this country. Stupid bullshit Swiftboat crap.

Who bases thier vote soley on one thing? :confused:

I don't get your point. Attack ads are one element of a political campaign. Some people seem to want that element removed, others like me enjoy that element. Why would you think people base thier vote soley on that one thing though?

greg donovan
12-30-2007, 09:34 AM
Who bases thier vote soley on one thing? :confused:

I don't get your point. Attack ads are one element of a political campaign. Some people seem to want that element removed, others like me enjoy that element. Why would you think people base thier vote soley on that one thing though?

people who dont care enough, thats who.

i bet there are plenty of people that base thier vote solely on tv ads.

AAlgar
12-30-2007, 09:37 AM
Who bases thier vote soley on one thing? :confused:

LOTS of people. I know all sorts of "one issue voters."

Taxman
12-30-2007, 09:42 AM
I found something new in the 2006 elections. I would get these call claiming to be polls. In reality though, they were attack phone calls. They were commissioned by one candidate, and every single question was written to attack to opponent. The first one I got I complained to the poll taker that this was in fact a candidate solicitation call rather than a poll and he told me that his company was just commission to conduct the poll and had no control over it. I ended the call prior to completion of the poll. I got another one of these for another candidate before the election, and shut that one down as soon as I realized what it was.

So to answer your question Thud, no I do not like attack ads. I do however like the attack phone call.

Taxman
12-30-2007, 09:43 AM
I like the candidates exposing each other. Sadly, I find myself unsurprised by this.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 09:51 AM
people who dont care enough, thats who.

i bet there are plenty of people that base thier vote solely on tv ads.


LOTS of people. I know all sorts of "one issue voters."

So your answer to that problem is to limit the sources of information?

xyzzy
12-30-2007, 09:53 AM
Who bases thier vote soley on one thing? :confused:

I don't get your point. Attack ads are one element of a political campaign. Some people seem to want that element removed, others like me enjoy that element. Why would you think people base thier vote soley on that one thing though?

Because people are idiots. This is the one truth that has remained constant through all the years.

AAlgar
12-30-2007, 09:53 AM
So your answer to that problem is to limit the sources of information?

I didn't say I had an answer. I was just saying...

Never mind. I hate these threads. You tricked me into coming into one. :x

greg donovan
12-30-2007, 09:59 AM
So your answer to that problem is to limit the sources of information?

nope. never said that.

just because i dont like them doesnt mean i think they should go away.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 10:00 AM
Because people are idiots. This is the one truth that has remained constant through all the years.

That's the problem with a free society. There will always be people participating in it who don't meet the performance standards of others participating in it.

Taking information at face value from only one source is always a stupid thing to do. There is no reason anyone has to do that. Attack ads can be one of many good sources of information and insight into the character of those running.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 10:00 AM
I didn't say I had an answer. I was just saying...

Never mind. I hate these threads. You tricked me into coming into one. :x

:lol:

Bryan H
12-30-2007, 10:03 AM
They provide no real information. Their primary objective (which they accomplish well) is to depress voter turnout by increasing apathy.

It works then. I usually try to keep track of what kind of attack ads I see and in turn vote against those who created the ad in the first place.

Though often times this simply leads to me deciding against all parties involved.

xyzzy
12-30-2007, 10:17 AM
That's the problem with a free society. There will always be people participating in it who don't meet the performance standards of others participating in it.

True. And attack ads use emotion and propaganda to prey on those stupid people. Hence, I don't like attack ads.

Bill!
12-30-2007, 10:44 AM
That's the problem with a free society. There will always be people participating in it who don't meet the performance standards of others participating in it.

Taking information at face value from only one source is always a stupid thing to do. There is no reason anyone has to do that. Attack ads can be one of many good sources of information and insight into the character of those running.

Since when are attack ads a reliable source of information? They tend to be the most skewed and deceptive source of information there is.

Amos Moses
12-30-2007, 10:54 AM
A lot of them go too far. The Swift Boat thing, the attacks on Huckabee's kid, that kind of shit is uncalled for. And really, even if a negative attack ad was 100% correct in its content, I would still be skeptical about it. I'd be more impressed with a candidate who spent his money on an ad detailing his plan or solution for an issue, rather than opponent bashing.

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 11:19 AM
I think information like voting records and where donations are coming from is real information.
It's not. If you get nothing else out of this thread, know that, at least.

It's possible (and common practice) to say things about voting records and such that, while technically true, are still wildly misleading. And a Congressional voting record - especially since most people don't really follow government procedure well enough to know how votes happen - is remarkably easy to distort.

For instance - an obvious example off the top of my head - in the 2004 election, there were multiple ads (and speakers at the Republican Convention, and pundits on TV and radio, and prominent Republicans like Rudy Giuliani on places like Meet the Press) saying that, "John Kerry voted for higher taxes over 300 times!"

Now, the part of that I would expect you to be suspicious about (and rightly so) is the "300 times" part, but first let's note the careful choice of the words "higher taxes". The understandable (and I'd say expected) inferrence by the audience would be that Kerry voted to increase taxes all those times, but remember the careful choice of words: "higher taxes". A slightly more inclusive term which allowed them to include any time he voted against a tax cut (no matter how ridiculous or potentially damaging), or even for a tax cut, just not one as large as someone else in Congress might have proposed in the tally.

And getting back to that tally - "300 times". It's an absurd number, even with the wordplay. The only way to get to a number that is to include every procedural vote (votes for cloture, votes on ammendments, votes on ammednments on bills that had nothing to do with taxes or spending but would still sneak in calls for lower taxes, etc.) that could possibly be found.

Ultimately, there was only one tax increase that John Kerry voted for - Bill Clinton's tax increase on the uber-wealthy in 1994.

.
David Aspmo

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 11:57 AM
Since when are attack ads a reliable source of information? They tend to be the most skewed and deceptive source of information there is.

Of course they are skewed. Deceptive is a matter of opinion. If the ad says that candidate A has a certian voting record or recieved a certian campaign contribution that is information that can be looked into if you want to learn more.

Roman Noodles
12-30-2007, 11:59 AM
I really REALLY hate them. Always have.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 12:08 PM
It's not. If you get nothing else out of this thread, know that, at least.

It's possible (and common practice) to say things about voting records and such that, while technically true, are still wildly misleading. And a Congressional voting record - especially since most people don't really follow government procedure well enough to know how votes happen - is remarkably easy to distort.

For instance - an obvious example off the top of my head - in the 2004 election, there were multiple ads (and speakers at the Republican Convention, and pundits on TV and radio, and prominent Republicans like Rudy Giuliani on places like Meet the Press) saying that, "John Kerry voted for higher taxes over 300 times!"

Now, the part of that I would expect you to be suspicious about (and rightly so) is the "300 times" part, but first let's note the careful choice of the words "higher taxes". The understandable (and I'd say expected) inferrence by the audience would be that Kerry voted to increase taxes all those times, but remember the careful choice of words: "higher taxes". A slightly more inclusive term which allowed them to include any time he voted against a tax cut (no matter how ridiculous or potentially damaging), or even for a tax cut, just not one as large as someone else in Congress might have proposed in the tally.

And getting back to that tally - "300 times". It's an absurd number, even with the wordplay. The only way to get to a number that is to include every procedural vote (votes for cloture, votes on ammendments, votes on ammednments on bills that had nothing to do with taxes or spending but would still sneak in calls for lower taxes, etc.) that could possibly be found.

Ultimately, there was only one tax increase that John Kerry voted for - Bill Clinton's tax increase on the uber-wealthy in 1994.

.
David Aspmo

That's the same with everything a politician says. They will always sell their own actions in the most positive light possible and their opponents actions in the most negative light they can.

I don't get your point. All political ads are spin, positive and negative. We still need them though. When you listen to interviews and political commentary shows havn't you noticed that most of the questions asked by the interviewers are about statements the candidates themselves have made? About themselves and each other?

Without the politicians raising the issues themselves, attacking each other and digging up thier own dirt, info just doesn't get out there.

King of Mars
12-30-2007, 12:29 PM
Despite the fact that political attack ads can be sort of amusing, I really don't like them. Our country's political discourse is in the fucking toilet right now, and those sorts of ads are just a sad reminder of that fact. I want substantive discussions of the issues, not just a bunch of pointless mudslinging.

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 12:29 PM
That's the same with everything a politician says. They will always sell their own actions in the most positive light possible and their opponents actions in the most negative light they can.

I don't get your point. All political ads are spin, positive and negative. We still need them though. When you listen to interviews and political commentary shows havn't you noticed that most of the questions asked by the interviewers are about statements the candidates themselves have made? About themselves and each other?

Without the politicians raising the issues themselves, attacking each other and digging up thier own dirt, info just doesn't get out there.
The point is that this "info" is not legitimate, and therefore serves no benefit to the discussion.

.
David Aspmo

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 12:31 PM
The point is that this "info" is not legitimate, and therefore serves no benefit to the discussion.

.
David Aspmo

That info serves the purpose of being a topic for us to research and discuss. That is the benifit.

Talking points originate somewhere. Attack ads are a main source of them during a campaign, a fairly vital one.

King of Mars
12-30-2007, 12:36 PM
It serves the point of being a topic to research and discuss. That is the benifit.They can serve a purpose, no doubt. I just think it's sad that so many people lend more importance to these attack ads than they do to substantive political discussion.

Dave S.
12-30-2007, 12:46 PM
I'd rather see a scathing ad attacking an opponent's voting record then, say, a white bookcase underlit to resemble a cross during a slow camera pan.

What I don't get is the fact that this guy is a Baptist minister, a proponent for Christian education, and makes his religious views known at every opportunity. And people are concerned he's trying to send a subliminal message with a cross? That'd be like if an anti-war movie had a hidden peace sign in the background and people wer elike "OMG! They are trying to promote peace with their subliminal peace sign!"

Mike Huckabee is fucking God Central, and a cross in the background really shouldn't be your huge concern if his religion bothers you.

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 12:47 PM
That info serves the purpose of being a topic for us to research and discuss. That is the benifit.

Talking points originate somewhere. Attack ads are a main source of them during a campaign, a fairly vital one.
Talking points generally aren't legitimate info, either.

And the vast majority of people don't have the time and/or interest to research or discuss these things - and there's not even a decent chance that such research and discussion would lead them to an honest assessment of them.

And it's not like there wouldn't be a way for legitimate info to get out if it weren't for this kind of bullshit.

.
David Aspmo

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 01:51 PM
Talking points generally aren't legitimate info, either.

And the vast majority of people don't have the time and/or interest to research or discuss these things - and there's not even a decent chance that such research and discussion would lead them to an honest assessment of them.

And it's not like there wouldn't be a way for legitimate info to get out if it weren't for this kind of bullshit.

.
David Aspmo

Would and could are two different things. News organizations or special interest groups could concievably mine the background of candidates and then get that info out to us voters as a non-profit, unbiased public service. Sounds like make believe to me , Unicorns and pixie dust. Our news organizations are lazy and / or biased, they don't do it. As for non-profit groups who have no vested interest doing it, who would that be?

The candidates and the special interest groups with vested interest working for them are the only ones actually digging up talking points. That's just how it is, and because of that I thank them for their hate ads.

NATE!
12-30-2007, 02:15 PM
I don't like endorsement ads which use children.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 02:18 PM
I don't like endorsement ads which use children.

Or hamsters. Hamster exploitation is reprehensible.

CPA
12-30-2007, 02:32 PM
Stupid bullshit Swiftboat crap.

By the way, you are only Swiftboated if its true. You can like Kerry all you want, but it does not make the Swiftboat stuff any less true. There is more than one guy that says he saw the Swiftboat events.

Also, none of the Swiftboat stuff was from Republicans. The head of the Swiftboat guys has been dogging Kerry since Vietnam and voted for Edwards in the Dem primaries. You can look up his name and see debates between he and Kerry all the way back in the 70's. None of that stuff is new.

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 03:06 PM
By the way, you are only Swiftboated if its true. You can like Kerry all you want, but it does not make the Swiftboat stuff any less true. There is more than one guy that says he saw the Swiftboat events.

Also, none of the Swiftboat stuff was from Republicans. The head of the Swiftboat guys has been dogging Kerry since Vietnam and voted for Edwards in the Dem primaries. You can look up his name and see debates between he and Kerry all the way back in the 70's. None of that stuff is new.
:rofl:

:rofl:

...swiftboat stuff was true...

:rofl:

...

sigh

Wow, that's just sad...

.
David Aspmo

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 03:09 PM
Would and could are two different things. News organizations or special interest groups could concievably mine the background of candidates and then get that info out to us voters as a non-profit, unbiased public service. Sounds like make believe to me , Unicorns and pixie dust. Our news organizations are lazy and / or biased, they don't do it. As for non-profit groups who have no vested interest doing it, who would that be?

The candidates and the special interest groups with vested interest working for them are the only ones actually digging up talking points. That's just how it is, and because of that I thank them for their hate ads.
How feasable an alternative would be really doesn't enter into whether I like something or not. I'm not going to approve of something that's shitty just because it seems difficult to change.

Incidentally, could you provide an example of a bullshit attack ad that you found beneficial? That led to a nationwide discussion and correctly clarified people's understanding of an issue or candidate?

.
David Aspmo

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 05:06 PM
How feasable an alternative would be really doesn't enter into whether or not I like something or not. I'm not going to approve of something that's shitty just because it seems difficult to change.

Incidentally, could you provide an example of a bullshit attack ad that you found benificial? That led to a nationwide discussion and correctly clarified people's understanding of an issue or candidate?

.
David Aspmo

Why yes, I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 05:36 PM
Why yes, I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg
Well, since I wasn't yet born in 1964, and therefore really have no first-hand knowledge of what the national discussion that resulted from that ad was like (and, to be honest, the only second hand information about it I've seen basically amounts to people laughing at it for being so extreme), I can't really comment. I'm not even sure how it helps make your point.

Maybe something from the last ten to fifteen years?

.
David Aspmo

RebootedCorpse
12-30-2007, 05:40 PM
By the way, you are only Swiftboated if its true. You can like Kerry all you want, but it does not make the Swiftboat stuff any less true. There is more than one guy that says he saw the Swiftboat events.

Also, none of the Swiftboat stuff was from Republicans. The head of the Swiftboat guys has been dogging Kerry since Vietnam and voted for Edwards in the Dem primaries. You can look up his name and see debates between he and Kerry all the way back in the 70's. None of that stuff is new.

Holy shit! That's a giant steaming pile of incorrect.
Really. Read a newspaper.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 05:42 PM
Well, since I wasn't yet born in 1964, and therefore really have no first-hand knowledge of what the national discussion that resulted from that ad was like (and, to be honest, the only second hand information about it I've seen basically amounts to people laughing at it for being so extreme), I can't really comment. I'm not even sure how it helps make your point.

Maybe something from the last ten to fifteen years?

.
David Aspmo

ok, a fairly recent one for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&feature=related

Lets discuss.

badpoet
12-30-2007, 05:54 PM
Holy shit! That's a giant steaming pile of incorrect.
Really. Read a newspaper.

Why would he start reading now at his age? It's much easier to rely on other people to inform your opinion, like Fox News analysts or Rush Limbaugh, than it is to actually study something.

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 06:20 PM
Michael J Fox for the win. :cool:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/thudpucker/039_10416Michael-J-Fox-Posters.jpg

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 06:20 PM
ok, a fairly recent one for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo&feature=related

Lets discuss.
Well, that's not bullshit (one of the conditions of my request). Obviously, I'm not saying that if a candidate supports something his opponent thinks is wrong, then the opponent shouldn't be able to point that out accurately and honestly. It's just that that usually isn't the case.

Before we go any further, I think it might be good to go back to where I came in on the thread. You were saying that you thought ads about voting records and the like were good, and I wanted to make the point that voting records can be and generally are distorted in attack ads. Looking back, I guess I should have qulaified that first sentence of that post as "Usually it's not" rather than the flat "It's not", seeing as it is possible (though not common) to have honest attack ads about such things.

But from that point on in our discussion, it seemed like you were defending the bullshit ads, as well. If that was not your intention, then I guess we don't have that much of a disagreement. And if that is the case, I think the confusion also came from the way the thread was framed. The only reason to hate attack ads is because of the dishonesty that generally permiates them - if you're not including the dishonesty element, it seems an odd question to ask in the first place.

.
David Aspmo

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 06:25 PM
Well, that's not bullshit (one of the conditions of my request). Obviously, I'm not saying that if a candidate supports something his opponent thinks is wrong, then the opponent shouldn't be able to point that out accurately and honestly. It's just that that usually isn't the case.

Before we go any further, I think it might be good to go back to where I came in on the thread. You were saying that you thought ads about voting records and the like were good, and I wanted to make the point that voting records can be and generally are distorted in attack ads. Looking back, I guess I should have qulaified that first sentence of that post as "Usually it's not" rather than the flat "It's not", seeing as it is possible (though not common) to have honest attack ads about such things.

But from that point on in our discussion, it seemed like you were defending the bullshit ads, as well. If that was not your intention, then I guess we don't have that much of a disagreement. And if that is the case, I think the confusion also came from the way the thread was framed. The only reason to hate attack ads is because of the dishonesty that generally permiates them - if you're not including the dishonesty element, it seems an odd question to ask in the first place.

.
David Aspmo

Oh no, I'm not defending the content of any one ad. I'm just saying that in general attack ads are an important part of the process and at times they can acomplish good things. TV ads are powerful tools.

btw, saying something doesn't meet your personal definition of bullshit so it doesn't count? That's bullshit. That ad led to a nationwide discussion and correctly clarified people's understanding of an issue or candidate. And it most certianly is an attack ad that millions of people found to be bullshit. Ask Rush Limbaugh if you don't believe me.

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 06:30 PM
btw, saying something doesn't meet your personal definition of bullshit so it doesn't count? That's bullshit.
Okay, why is the Michael J. Fox ad bullshit? :)

edit (to respond to your edit): Rush Limbaugh claimed that Michael J. Fox was faking his involuntary movements to gain sympathy. Limbaugh is... not the best source to judge what is or isn't bullshit.

.
David Aspmo

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 06:32 PM
Okay, why is the Michael J. Fox ad bullshit? :)

.
David Aspmo

Google the words Michael J Fox and Rush Limbaugh together, read to your hearts content. :)

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 06:38 PM
I'll give you a little time to account for my edit... :)

.

David Aspmo

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 06:46 PM
Okay, why is the Michael J. Fox ad bullshit? :)

edit (to respond to your edit): Rush Limbaugh claimed that Michael J. Fox was faking his involuntary movements to gain sympathy. Limbaugh is... not the best source to judge what is or isn't bullshit.

.
David Aspmo

And you are the best source of what is bullshit? Interesting.

If you don't want to admit that ad meets the criteria of your request perfectly, that's on you I guess. You seem to be arguing pointlessly for it's own sake right now though.


I

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 06:51 PM
Oh, and to get back to a particularly amusing part of the Swiftboat guy's post:

Noting that John O'Neill has been after Kerry since the 70s doesn't help your argument - especially the part about how the attacks supposedly weren't orchestrated by Republicans, considering that it was Richard Nixon who originally recruited him to attack Kerry back then. :lol:

.
David Aspmo

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 07:00 PM
And you are the best source of what is bullshit? Interesting.

If you don't want to admit that ad meets the criteria of your request perfectly, that's on you I guess. You seem to be arguing pointlessly for it's own sake right now though.
Dude, I put the smiley at the end of that because I only half expected you to bother answering (seeing as how we had largely come to agreement, I thought). Besides, you were the one who was challenging me about having a "personal definition of bullshit".

And then you brought up Limbaugh... :-? I thought we were at least half-joking around at this point.

Seriously, though, there is an objective reality that we can compare statements to in order to determine whether or not they are bullshit. It doesn't need to be a subjective determination by me or anyone else.

.
David Aspmo

PimpSlapStick!
12-30-2007, 07:10 PM
I'm just waiting for the "Obama robbed me in 82' ad."

Thudpucker
12-30-2007, 07:16 PM
Dude, I put the smiley at the end of that because I only half expected you to bother answering (seeing as how we had largely come to agreement, I thought). Besides, you were the one who was challenging me about having a "personal definition of bullshit".

And then you brought up Limbaugh... :-? I thought we were at least half-joking around at this point.

Seriously, though, there is an objective reality that we can compare statements to in order to determine whether or not they are bullshit. It doesn't need to be a subjective determination by me or anyone else.

.
David Aspmo

I am half joking David, I'm having fun ;)

Amos Moses
12-30-2007, 07:18 PM
I'm just waiting for the "Obama robbed me in 82' ad."

It was in 84', and then he impregnated my blonde, blue eyed girlfriend and never paid child support.

David Aspmo
12-30-2007, 07:45 PM
I found something new in the 2006 elections. I would get these call claiming to be polls. In reality though, they were attack phone calls. They were commissioned by one candidate, and every single question was written to attack to opponent. The first one I got I complained to the poll taker that this was in fact a candidate solicitation call rather than a poll and he told me that his company was just commission to conduct the poll and had no control over it. I ended the call prior to completion of the poll. I got another one of these for another candidate before the election, and shut that one down as soon as I realized what it was.
What you've just described are known as "push-polls". They aren't new. I'm not sure how long they've been around, but one of the more famous uses was against John McCain in the 2000 primary:

People would get calls asking things like, "If you knew that John McCain had an illegitimate black child, would that make you more or less likely to vote for him?" This was in South Carolina, so I imagine that went over real big. And what was really insideous about it was that McCain and his wife had adopted a darker skinned baby girl that they would have with them in public appearances - and I'm sure there were people who put two and fraudulant two together.

.
David Aspmo

PimpSlapStick!
12-30-2007, 08:31 PM
It was in 84', and then he impregnated my blonde, blue eyed girlfriend and never paid child support.

The sucka really is black.

:cool: