Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 79
  1. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman



    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    The race just shouldn't be this close in the worse economy in 80 years.
    I'm not sure it is that close.

    Think about this. A media (NBC) that edits 911 tapes (Treyvon Martin), won't report stories that would hurt the image of Obama, or report half-truths to protect him.

    Why should we trust their polling data to be accurate? I'm not saying they are lying, but I definitely think it's possible for example when they call... Wisconsin they call a city like Madison to get their sample. Or Virginia they call Fairfax.

    Polls are fluid, and generally don't start getting accurate till after labor day when they want to keep their credibility up for future elections.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  2. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,351

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Obama admits what we all knew ...

    http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ry-131577.html
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  3. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,286
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    NC:

    Go to REal Clear.

    Rasmussen has them even and he's always accurate.

    His elect map is almost even.

    That's pretty close and shouldn't be but Mitt just can't sell himself. His European trip was suppose to move him up in the polls but didn't and it started out with a huge gaffe.

    As posted above, Mitt just isn't hitting back hard on these ads like
    Nixon and Reagan would have.

    Hell, even PoP Bush hit Dukakis hard.

    Remember the commercial with the tank and the commander had his head sticking out and he looked like
    Alfred E. Newman.

    It depicted Dukakis as a nut who would be commander in chief.

    It won the election for him.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  4. #28

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Quote Originally Posted by TheExtraPoint View Post
    Wait... I thought this ad was unprecedented in it's scurrilousness.

    Just because things have long been bad on the campaign trail (which they have) doesn't mean they couldn't (and haven't) gotten substantially worse on both sides of the aisle as a result of the Citizens United ruling. We regressed when we needed progressive reform of the way campaigns operate.

    Another word for that is regulation. Of course, regulation that produces accountability is something every American should support (unless they (like you) approve of the political climate this ruling has given us).
    The current political climate pre-dated the ruling. And I am not sure I follow your logic as to why Citizens United somehow causes people to say more 'scurrilous' things. Free speech is free speech. "Acceptable" free speech never needs to be defended.

    The current issue isn't so much the scurrilousness of the ad, it is that anyone (the admaker) would think it would not get universally panned (i.e. that anyone would think it could be effective let alone not backfire). Of course once you realize that the Administration or the Democratic leadership have not disavowed it, and considering the other general sleaziness of Reid and today's Democratic leaders, and considering the general tendency of the MSM to carry water for or give a pass to leftist nonsense, you can see how the admakers could have convinced themselves it was worth doing.

    As for 'regulating' free speech, I think the Founders had it right when they assumed the risks of allowing the government to silence its people was much higher than the risk the people would fail to be able to correctly judge for themselves the relative value of various speech.




  5. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,286
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Rack it.

    Outstanding post.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  6. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Wonder how much (if any) attention this story will get.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  7. #31

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    [QUOTE=Haloti92;471143]
    The current political climate pre-dated the ruling. And I am not sure I follow your logic as to why Citizens United somehow causes people to say more 'scurrilous' things. Free speech is free speech. "Acceptable" free speech never needs to be defended.

    The current issue isn't so much the scurrilousness of the ad, it is that anyone (the admaker) would think it would not get universally panned (i.e. that anyone would think it could be effective let alone not backfire). Of course once you realize that the Administration or the Democratic leadership have not disavowed it, and considering the other general sleaziness of Reid and today's Democratic leaders, and considering the general tendency of the MSM to carry water for or give a pass to leftist nonsense, you can see how the admakers could have convinced themselves it was worth doing.

    As for 'regulating' free speech, I think the Founders had it right when they assumed the risks of allowing the government to silence its people was much higher than the risk the people would fail to be able to correctly judge for themselves the relative value of various speech.
    First of all, the argument that this particular ad is unprecedented in its nastiness is not mine, and I don't agree with it. It was made elsewhere in the thread.

    I do however support the notion that the overall political climate in this country has taken a precipitous downward fall in recent years, and that can be attributed at least in part to the lack of accountability and proliferation of anonymous, corporate, and/or special interest money in campaigns. Citizens United in my view made this far worse. If you choose to argue that it does not, that's your prerogative and we'll have to agree to disagree. These things are not easily quantifiable.

    But in addition to free speech - an important individual right that is nevertheless in my view appropriately limited in a variety of ways ie. slander, libel, hate speech, incitement, and in other circumstantial instances - our founders also advocated for a representative democracy. An environment in which all engaged citizens collectively determine our fate on the strength of one vote per person and equal influence across the American voting landscape. That's evaporated and this ruling has taken us even further away from that ideal.

    Call me idealistic. That's fine. I am. But when one individual, corporation OR special interest group can contribute countless millions of dollars directly to or indirectly in support of political campaigns, irrespective of their particular motives, intentions, nationality or background, it suggest to me that my influence is not directly equal to that of my peers, and begets the type of mess in terms of leadership and divisive rhetoric (as seen in this ad and elsewhere) we see today. I think that's a HUGE problem for our country that was only worsened by the ruling.

    As for all of the conservative buzzwords you tossed out there, you'd be both flat wrong and totally unfair to view the nastiness or sleaziness of today's climate as exclusive to either political party or a given individual. That's just intellectually dishonest and I suspect as a smart person, you know it to be the case.




  8. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,351

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Both sides have their individual donors.

    Both sides have their corporate donors.

    Both sides have their Super PAC's

    Both sides have their uber wealthy individuals.

    How is this unfair?

    And to say that some ruling made things worse shows a lack of historical perspective. Circa 1800, opponents to then candidate Thomas Jefferson called him ""a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  9. #33

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Both sides have their individual donors.

    Both sides have their corporate donors.

    Both sides have their Super PAC's

    Both sides have their uber wealthy individuals.

    How is this unfair?

    And to say that some ruling made things worse shows a lack of historical perspective. Circa 1800, opponents to then candidate Thomas Jefferson called him ""a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."
    It's unfair to the people of this country, not to the political parties. And it is my opinion that these rules make things more divisive. I thought both views were made fairly clear.




  10. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,351

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Quote Originally Posted by TheExtraPoint View Post
    It's unfair to the people of this country, not to the political parties. And it is my opinion that these rules make things more divisive. I thought both views were made fairly clear.
    Who said anything about political parties?

    And again I ask, how is it unfair to "the people of this country"? No matter your position, there is a candidate for you. No matter your position, there is a special interest group you can join / contribute.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  11. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Wonder how much (if any) attention this story will get.
    From TheEP, I'm guessing...none.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  12. #36

    Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Who said anything about political parties?

    And again I ask, how is it unfair to "the people of this country"? No matter your position, there is a candidate for you. No matter your position, there is a special interest group you can join / contribute.
    When you said "both sides" I assumed you were talking about parties, no?

    FWIW, there really isn't a candidate for my positions. Like many Americans, my vote will generally be for who I perceive to be the lesser of two evils among the candidates of the only relevant parties in modern American politics.

    Either way I think the system as it stands is unfair because it corrupts the ideal of a representative democracy on the basis of money-bought influence. That's true both in campaigns and in broader governance. I don't have the same influence as Sheldon Adelson because I don't have as much money as he does. I'm asking honestly: Is that how you think it's supposed to work?

    Maybe you think it's fair. I don't think it's at all what was intended for our country by the founders the right so often claims to revere.

    And I happen to think that's something efficient regulation (otherwise known as reform) can fix.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    From TheEP, I'm guessing...none.
    It's funny. I come to this thread CRITICAL of the ad in question and yet you won't quit until you prove some vacuous point about how the President himself or his campaign as a whole is somehow any worse than his counterpart in this regard. It's nonsense.

    What exactly is it you are trying to prove? That political surrogates are mean-spirited, biased and/or disingenuous? If you needed this situation to affirm that for you, you're the one who is late to the party.

    That you are trying to use this to somehow frame the President as complicit, yet are somehow willing to look the way when Romney surrogates for example say that they wish the President would "learn how to be an American", is beyond me.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland