Results 25 to 36 of 79
-
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
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.
-
08-09-2012, 05:47 PM #26Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
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
-
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.
-
08-09-2012, 06:29 PM #28Veteran Poster
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
- Posts
- 4,553
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
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.
-
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
Rack it.
Outstanding post.
-
-
08-10-2012, 11:16 AM #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.
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.
-
08-10-2012, 11:35 AM #32Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
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."
-
08-10-2012, 11:36 AM #33
-
08-10-2012, 11:43 AM #34Legendary RSR Poster
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Location
- Houston, TX Y'all
- Posts
- 34,414
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
-
-
08-10-2012, 01:22 PM #36
Re: New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman
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.
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