[voyageur]

This 30 second ad was deemed too controversial by CBS, and they have refused to air it during the Super Bowl.
Thoughts?

[Johnny Lydon]

My thoughts are that American tax-payers own the airwaves not CBS. We own the FCC. We should be the ones who decide what is fit to be aired on TV not mindless corporate drones selling cancerous garbage wrapped in petroleum products.

Tax revolt. General strike! That's my thought. See how well corporate imperialsim works with no cluster bombs! Rat fvks.

[Nonsuch]

CBS doesn't want 1,000,000 Rush Limbaugh fans jamming their switchboards with complaints of "liberal bias." (Even though fiscal responsibility is, or was, a conservative position.)

[Timo]

According to William Melody, the greatest threat to freedom of expression in the United States or elsewhere is the possibility that private entrepreneurs will always tend to monopolise the marketplace of ideas in the name of economic efficiency and private profit (Melody 1978). As a result of economic conditions or circumstances, access to the marketplace of ideas is restricted to a privileged few.

et cetera

http://www.lirne.net/resources/netknowledge/meier.pdf

[Lerkfish]

oddly enough, I found that ad the LEAST objectionable of any that were submitted to moveon.

in fact, I felt it was watered down.

[Evan_11]

The problem with the ad is that it directly relates the defecit (caused all by Bush of course) to child labor. The ad is indeed controversial if you view it from this POV. It seemed innoculous enough to me but nonetheless it is falsely bringing a visual corollary (child labor) into the equation.

Kind of like your "Bush lied, Troops died" bumper sticker lerk.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
The problem with the ad is that it directly relates the defecit (caused all by Bush of course) to child labor.

It doesn't. You just don't understand it.

[ghost_flash]

Let me take a *stab* in the dark about why this ad won't air during the superbowl.

IT IS UTTERLY DEPRESSING AND BELONGS AS
SOME PBS MESSAGE ON CHANNEL 11.

I can hear it now in my house:

"Honey come in here and look at this compelling commercial during the superbowl!., it is fascinating, and interesting, and I just cannot get over it. I simply must pause my Tivo (TM) and call my congressmen to enact a change and show my outrage for....."

NOT.

"Commercial time, I'm in the fridge digging out another beer, butt sticking out, I hear something, commercial, something, HEY THE GAMES BACK ON!, hurry up with the beer!."

YES.

Not the market for such a commerical.
Try after or during OPRAH.

Or, go to OXYGEN, WE, LIFETIME.

That being said, I did take the time and look
at this commercial, and the production values
were top notch, which I can appreciate. It
was well done. Do I give a F***K? NO.

MOVE-ON!

[hyteckit]

This ad is so tame.

All it says "who will be paying for Pres. Bush's $1 trillion dollar deficit"

Ad points out: Your children.

[Zimphire]

It was FUD.

[UNTeMac]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:

<snip>

Not the market for such a commerical.
Try after or during OPRAH.

Or, go to OXYGEN, WE, LIFETIME.

That being said, I did take the time and look
at this commercial, and the production values
were top notch, which I can appreciate. It
was well done. Do I give a F***K? NO.

MOVE-ON!

CBS shouldn't decide the market for the commercial...the purchaser of the airtime should. ($4 million a minute)

Any reason you suggested women's networks for the airing of a left-leaning ad? Conservatism make you feel manly?

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Developer:
It doesn't. You just don't understand it.

Uh, yes I understand it. You just don't understand why it's misleading liberal bullsh*t.

[zigzag]

I doubt there's anything sinister behind it, although that's possible. My guess is that CBS just doesn't want to run a controversial ad during the SB, which, as someone else suggested, would result in 10 million Ditto-heads calling and complaining about the liberal media, which, as this very episode demonstrates, is in many respects a myth.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Uh, yes I understand it. You just don't understand why it's misleading liberal bullsh*t.

misleading? who do you propose is going to pay the largest deficit in recorded history? your grandmother?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
The problem with the ad is that it directly relates the defecit (caused all by Bush of course) to child labor. The ad is indeed controversial if you view it from this POV. It seemed innoculous enough to me but nonetheless it is falsely bringing a visual corollary (child labor) into the equation.

Kind of like your "Bush lied, Troops died" bumper sticker lerk.

you obviously don't understand the ad nor my bumper sticker.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Uh, yes I understand it. You just don't understand why it's misleading liberal bullsh*t.

Yes we and our kids pay off the defecite.

That has been happening for decades.

Not something new to this Administration.

No matter how hard thy try to spin it.

So yes, misleading.

[theolein]

What are these fubar refugees doing here? I thought remedial lessons were taking place in the Lounge, not here. I find it rather irritating that not only do the supposedly unbiased moderators tolerate Zimphire's inability to string a sentence together, but that we are now faced with a whole group of over aggressive, downs syndrome delinquents who are unable to even understand a simple two point concept (Large deficit, which children will have to pay off) in a short video clip.

A sad state of affairs.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It was FUD.

Do you ever use that term correctly?

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes we and our kids pay off the defecite.

That has been happening for decades.

Not something new to this Administration.

No matter how hard thy try to spin it.

So yes, misleading.

They're not claiming it's new to this administration.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by theolein:
What are these fubar refugees doing here?

Er if you were speaking about the forum, I am the only person from said forum in this thread.

I thought remedial lessons were taking place in the Lounge, not here. I find it rather irritating that not only do the supposedly unbiased moderators tolerate Zimphire's inability to string a sentence together, but that we are now faced with a whole group of over aggressive, downs syndrome delinquents who are unable to even understand a simple two point concept (Large deficit, which children will have to pay off) in a short video clip.

A sad state of affairs.

Yeah baseless accusations with no merit suck don't they.

I know after reading this, I don't feel as if I wasted my time at all.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
Do you ever use that term correctly?

Just because you don't agree that it's not FUD, doesn't mean it wasn't used correctly.

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
They're not claiming it's new to this administration.

They are implying it's a Bush thing. Yes indeed they are.

Otherwise they wouldn't be pointing fingers would they?

Our kids have always payed the debt. It has been happening for decades.

They were using the kids to pull heart strings and to bring up emotion to the watcher.

Bush is going to make your kids pay for our debt! THE NERVE!

Er wait, all Presidents have.

[Turias]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you obviously don't understand the ad nor my bumper sticker.

'k, I'll bite. What's on your bumper sticker?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Turias:
'k, I'll bite. What's on your bumper sticker?

I suggested a fictious bumper sticker:

BUSH LIED
TROOPS DIED

...and he has a problem with me suggesting that.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Just because you don't agree that it's not FUD, doesn't mean it wasn't used correctly.

You mean "just because you don't agree that it is FUD." And you're still wrong.

[Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt] is a marketing technique used when a competitor launches a product that is both better than yours and costs less, i.e. your product is no longer competitive. Unable to respond with hard facts, scare-mongering is used via 'gossip channels' to cast a shadow of doubt over the competitors offerings and make people think twice before using it.

MoveOn is simply pointing out a fact that you yourself acknowledge—the very opposite of FUD.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They are implying it's a Bush thing. Yes indeed they are.

It is a Bush thing inasmuch as it is Bush, not Clinton or Gore, who is in office, and it's Bush's budgets and policies that brought on this staggering deficit. Is pointing out the head-slappingly obvious now considered distortion and propaganda?

Originally posted by Zimphire:
They were using the kids to pull heart strings and to bring up emotion to the watcher.

Oh my goodness. How pernicious—using advertising to elicit an emotional response. Will the perfidy of the left never cease?

All advertising seeks to bring up emotions, whether the "product" is President Bush's reelection, the war on drugs or canned soup. Welcome to the 21st century.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Bush is going to make your kids pay for our debt! THE NERVE!

Er wait, all Presidents have.

How you conclude that that makes the message irrelevant or misleading is beyond me. Today, right now—not four years ago, not ten years ago, but now, the actual time in which we live—it is President Bush who is racking up record deficits, deficits which are turning out to be far greater than his administration estimated. That is a legitimate subject for public debate. It may ease your Bush-lovin' heart to point out that other presidents have done it before, but it has no bearing on the matter at hand.

[MacOSR]

Personally, I want the ad to run. I think there is a dangerous thing happening right now in the Democratic Party that is being pushed by extremeists in the party.

What does the Democratic Party do if the claims that are being made in the ads don't come true? There is no way they could distance themselves from the ads even if the party itself did not run them.

I would be embarassed if the Republican Party had run ads similar to these during the Clinton administration. Even though I did not agree with Clinton's politics or actions he still deserved respect as our President.

I guess it is all in how you look at it and how you try and get votes. The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling...come on...everyone at the same time...the sky is falling, the sky is falling and Bush's possibly had something to do with it!

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
What does the Democratic Party do if the claims that are being made in the ads don't come true? There is no way they could distance themselves from the ads even if the party itself did not run them.

That doesn't seem very likely, does it? A trillion dollars is an awful lot of debt to clean up.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
Personally, I want the ad to run. I think there is a dangerous thing happening right now in the Democratic Party that is being pushed by extremeists in the party.

well, that nevers happens in the republican party. (/sarcasm)

Originally posted by MacOSR:
What does the Democratic Party do if the claims that are being made in the ads don't come true? There is no way they could distance themselves from the ads even if the party itself did not run them.

ummm. Actually, I personally would dance for joy if my children did not have to pay for this record-high deficit. Can you please explain how that could possibly happen? No, really, I want to know how this ad could possibly not come true? Does the US have a rich relation in Saudi Arabia that is willing to give us a non-repayable gift of 4.77 trillion dollars? Someone call him right away and send him a poundcake.

Originally posted by MacOSR:
I would be embarassed if the Republican Party had run ads similar to these during the Clinton administration. Even though I did not agree with Clinton's politics or actions he still deserved respect as our President.

Well, the republican party had nothing but the utmost respect for Clinton while in office. That impeachment thing was just a love tap.(/sarcasm)
You apparently have conveniently forgotten the negative ad campaigns from both sides during the election season. both sides do it, most people hate them, but the ad agencies continue to make them because they work, unfortunately. but to claim the republicans don't dirty their hands with negative advertising is bizarre, or naive.

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
That doesn't seem very likely, does it? A trillion dollars is an awful lot of debt to clean up.

Absolutely! I have been concerned about this for years. What is most disturbing to me is how money can be hidden...we can show a balanced budget by just shuffling some money around!

What is funny is that most people will blame or give credit to the President for the budget.

I am all for a balanced budget ammendment...if it is done correctly. If we are running on a 10% deficit...ALL programs get cut 10%. This would take politics out of what is cut!

[MacOSR]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, that nevers happens in the republican party. (/sarcasm)

Has the Republican party ran ads such as these? I wasn't aware of this...can I see them anywhere online as I can with the anti-Bush ads.

ummm. Actually, I personally would dance for joy if my children did not have to pay for this record-high deficit. Can you please explain how that could possibly happen? No, really, I want to know how this ad could possibly not come true? Does the US have a rich relation in Saudi Arabia that is willing to give us a non-repayable gift of 4.77 trillion dollars? Someone call him right away and send him a poundcake.

You will get no argumnet from on the budget...I just laught when Bush is blamed. People that blame Bush for the deficit should be looking at congress.

Well, the republican party had nothing but the utmost respect for Clinton while in office. That impeachment thing was just a love tap.(/sarcasm)

Actually, I did agree with the impeachment...and I voted for Clinton. What he did was completely un-Presidential and cowardly. If I did what he did to one of my female employees I would be sued and fired by my board.

You apparently have conveniently forgotten the negative ad campaigns from both sides during the election season. both sides do it, most people hate them, but the ad agencies continue to make them because they work, unfortunately. but to claim the republicans don't dirty their hands with negative advertising is bizarre, or naive.

Like I said in the opening comments I do not remember anything like this ever coming from any group associated with the Republican party. Please point me in the right direction to view these ads...thanks!

[swrate]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, that nevers happens in the republican party. (/sarcasm)

ummm. Actually, I personally would dance for joy if my children did not have to pay for this record-high deficit. Can you please explain how that could possibly happen? No, really, I want to know how this ad could possibly not come true? Does the US have a rich relation in Saudi Arabia that is willing to give us a non-repayable gift of 4.77 trillion dollars? Someone call him right away and send him a poundcake.

Well, the republican party had nothing but the utmost respect for Clinton while in office. That impeachment thing was just a love tap.(/sarcasm)
You apparently have conveniently forgotten the negative ad campaigns from both sides during the election season. both sides do it, most people hate them, but the ad agencies continue to make them because they work, unfortunately. but to claim the republicans don't dirty their hands with negative advertising is bizarre, or naive.

Merchandizing, nothing wrong with that
I read banners a few months ago saying "terrorists dont vote for W" and I felt it was subtil discrimination. I also feel that way with ads from political leaders here(same wing)


Voyageur's
Passengers in this life.

"May we remember not to make this place worse for our kids."
Mars irruptions caused seas of incandescent fluids, we wouldn’t want the last humanoids to escape to Venus from Ayers Rock. –farfetched too.


Sorry in advance for the generalizations.

Part of that clip was diffused on news here, about one month ago because it was subject to controversy in US.
I wasn’t surprised, since Mac Carthy also censored a few versions.
Restricting freedom of communication.?
Jk, I wasn’t surprised, because US has more censorship----) at least global manipulation lately.
That’s the way I feel about it from here. I lived in the US and have family there, but haven’t returned since many years, because, sorry if I hurt any of you, I prefer other countries.

I noticed how the “you Euroweenies are just jealous of us” has disappeared these last months. So there is a collective realisation, that we (Europe) do not envy our big brother America. and hope, I am a dreamer.
I thought the MOveon clip was extremely well made, the atmosphere reminded me of that industrial period Charles Dickens tales.
May we remember that not too long ago, one century, one half a century ago -depending on the middle from which we are issue, we used to start working at much earlier ages and finish much older. The living conditions were drastically different.
In third world countries, those pictures would surprise none, as it is an everyday scene.

I shiver to hear there has been limits in it’s transmission.
But then maybe it is to not brake the spirit of the game.
But it could also be that political leaders hold parts in the media market, such as in Italy Berlusconi, and programs brainwash the population, especially entertainment. The system brainwashes thoughts in an aimed direction.
It is farfetched, but this kind of reaction reminds me of A.Sharon’s fit in the museum. There is nothing offensive in this clip (tv shows all sorts of violent degrading stuff, imo much more offensive),

The offence is, those images diffuse a mirror effect: “what reality may become” who may bring people to think too much.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:


You mean "just because you don't agree that it is FUD." And you're still wrong.



MoveOn is simply pointing out a fact that you yourself acknowledge—the very opposite of FUD.

[/b]

It is a Bush thing inasmuch as it is Bush, not Clinton or Gore, who is in office, and it's Bush's budgets and policies that brought on this staggering deficit. Is pointing out the head-slappingly obvious now considered distortion and propaganda?

[/b]

Oh my goodness. How pernicious—using advertising to elicit an emotional response. Will the perfidy of the left never cease?

All advertising seeks to bring up emotions, whether the "product" is President Bush's reelection, the war on drugs or canned soup. Welcome to the 21st century.



How you conclude that that makes the message irrelevant or misleading is beyond me. Today, right now—not four years ago, not ten years ago, but now, the actual time in which we live—it is President Bush who is racking up record deficits, deficits which are turning out to be far greater than his administration estimated. That is a legitimate subject for public debate. It may ease your Bush-lovin' heart to point out that other presidents have done it before, but it has no bearing on the matter at hand. [/B]

and here I thought it was because a group of terrorists attacked our country and are still being harbored and supported by other nations (which will also be throttled for such actions). Hmmmm...

Answer this. Are you Lefties pissed because there's not been a successful terrorist assault in the US since 9/11? It costs $$$ to defend against that type of worthless scum.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Answer this. Are you Lefties pissed because there's not been a successful terrorist assault in the US since 9/11? It costs $$$ to defend against that type of worthless scum.

• You obviously have no idea what the government spends most of its money on. Its not military spending that is pushing the deficit.
  
• I could have prevented the 9/11 attack with a $10 masterlock on the cockpit door.
  
• How many international terrorist attacks have been conducted on US soil in the last 20 years? 50 years? 100?
  
• Government tells you there is an Arab boogey-man out to get you, collects your money and curbs your civil liberties, insists the boogey-man could strike any minute, collects more money and further curbs your civil liberties, reminds you that the boogey-man is ruthless and inscrutibale, collects more of your money.....Oh, and don't forget to hand over more of your civil liberties!
  
• Considering that I'm statistically more in danger from alligators, sharks or lightening than terrorists, I suggest this government "protection racket" is a total waste.
  
• More people die of influenza than terrorism. We'd save more lives with healthcare reform than if we nuked the middle east entirely.

BOT:

Published on Friday, January 23, 2004 by The Nation
Bush Helps CBS, CBS Helps Bush
by John Nichols

The annual Super Bowl game draws a huge audience of television viewers – 130 million Americans are expected to view the game February 1 -- and advertisers of all types want to reach that audience. So CBS, which will air the most-watched football game of the year, has jacked up ad rates accordingly and begun selling chunks of air time to peddlers of beer, soda pop, cars, trucks and political agendas.

But the network is not taking ads from all comers. Some political views have been judged unacceptable by CBS censors. While advertising industry sources say CBS will air a pair of advocacy commercials prepared to advance the agenda of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, the network has refused to accept an advertisement prepared by critics of the man who currently occupies the White House.

The MoveOn.org Voter Fund recently conducted a "Bush in 30 Seconds" TV ad contest, in which it promised that the winning entry would be shown during the Super Bowl broadcast. MoveOn, the innovative internet-based activist community, was willing to pay the $2 million it would cost to air the ad. And no one suggests that the ad is inaccurate or inappropriate; indeed, Fox TV commentator Bill'Reilly, no fan of MoveOn, says: "It's not offensive, (it) makes a legitimate point politically."

Yet, CBS is refusing to run the MoveOn ad, claiming in the words of CBS spokesperson Dana McClintock, "We have a policy against accepting advocacy advertising." The reason? CBS told MoveOn that it does not want to trouble viewers with commercials that address "controversial issues of public importance."

The MoveOn commercial does indeed address an issue of public importance: the rapid growth of the federal deficit. But as advocacy ads go, this ad is not particularly controversial. The ad simply warns that the Bush Administration's reckless policy of cutting taxes for wealthy Americans while hiking spending is creating a huge federal budget deficit that will have to be paid off by future generations. That statement merely echoes concerns expressed by both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Just this week, more than three dozen Republican members of the House launched a campaign to get the White House to slow the rate of deficit spending.

In fairness to CBS, the MoveOn advertisement might be considered controversial by White House political czar Karl Rove and others who are offended by any criticism of the president or his policies. But if controversy is really a concern, then why would CBS consider airing advocacy commercials from the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy?

At a time when millions of Americans, including federal judges, mayors, governors and members of Congress are questioning the wisdom of continuing the failed war on drugs, the Office of National Drug Control Policy advocacy ads frequently inspire controversy. Indeed, past Super Bowl commercials from the agency, which equated casual drug use with support for international terrorism, have stirred significant debate – and, yes, controversy.

So what's the real reason for the CBS decision to censor an advertisement – from MoveOn -- that raises legitimate questions about the president's approach to a pressing national concern?

"It seems to us that CBS simply defers to those it fears or from whom it wants favors – in this case, the Bush White House," argues Eli Pariser, campaign director for MoveOn.org. "This is the same CBS that recently backed down when the Republican National Committee made a stink about its mini-series on former President Reagan and his family."

Pariser notes, correctly, that Viacom -- the parent company of CBS that also owns the UPN network, MTV, Showtime, Nickelodeon, BET, Paramount Pictures, Blockbuster Video, over 175 radio stations and more than 35 local television stations -- has been in the forefront of lobbying for the lifting of Federal Communications Commission limits on media consolidation and conglomeration.

On June 2 of last year, the FCC voted 3-2 to allow networks such as CBS to dramatically expand their control over local television markets.

Even when Congress roll back the FCC rule changes, the Bush White House took the side of CBS – pressuring Republican leaders in the House and Senate to prevent votes on initiatives to retain existing ownership limits. Now, in an election year, CBS is taking the side of the Bush White House and censoring an advertisement that seeks to open a debate about the president's fiscal policies – while at the same time preparing to air a commercial that advances other policies promoted by the same president.

When it comes to censoring Super Bowl commercials, CBS is way out of bounds.

[zigzag]

.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

• More people die of influenza than terrorism. We'd save more lives with healthcare reform than if we nuked the middle east entirely.

More people seem to die from fighting terrorism than from terrorism

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
More people seem to die from fighting terrorism than from terrorism

Heh.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by UNTiMac:
CBS shouldn't decide the market for the commercial...the purchaser of the airtime should. ($4 million a minute)

Any reason you suggested women's networks for the airing of a left-leaning ad? Conservatism make you feel manly?

I didn't say that CBS should decide a market
for this or any commercial. I suggested better
markets for it, such as Oprah, et al others that
made more sense. Kind of like advertising a
tampon during the superbowl... not good.

I have a great reason for my suggestions.
Women have a voice right? Then who should
see the commercial? A man who really doesn't
care but to watch the football game? or a
woman who will then influence her man.

You do believe men and women actually talk
with each other about these issues right?
I know my wife and I discuss this and other
issues all the time. I'm not stuck in any
mindset, but I do know what works and what
doesn't. This was my oppinion, and it is
possible I was wrong, maybe 1 out of 50
guys watching the SB would give a crap,
instead of 1 in 100 like I originally thought.

I need a beer.

[thunderous_funker]

And yet CBS thinks that "anti-drug" ads, even controversial ones that equate casual drug use with terrorism, are perfectly appropriate.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And yet CBS thinks that "anti-drug" ads, even controversial ones that equate casual drug use with terrorism, are perfectly appropriate.

That is a good point, and I would be just as
right as I was initialy in stating, during the
commercials, I'm in the fridge getting a beer
and it really doesn't matter what commercial
is on.

PBS ads during the SB are just lame.
I want to see a padlock get shot with a
high-powered rifle.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I suggested a fictious bumper sticker:

BUSH LIED
TROOPS DIED

...and he has a problem with me suggesting that.

Lerk, I'm not going to debate you on whether Bush lied or not. His basis, so far on WMDs was obviously wrong. I'll give you that. That doesn't mean Saddam did not have WMD's at one time. It just so seems that he made them dissapear over a period of time.

I, unlike you don't have a problem with Saddam Hussein gone. I think we finished the job that should of been finished over ten years ago. Back when the SOB had WMDs. It is now more important to focus on rebuilding Iraq (which our wonderful soldiers are helping to do post haste) and instituting a legitmate, democratic government. If that is possible.

Regarding your bumper sticker: It's beyond lame and disrespectful to those who have fallen. You can take your catchy, hippy lingo and shove it straight up you know where. Don't worry I'm just saving you the insult and pain for when you stick it on the back of your 1988 Volvo and some hillbilly decides that he doesn't like you for more than the reasons we have here.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Lerk, I'm not going to debate you on whether Bush lied or not. His basis, so far on WMDs was obviously wrong. I'll give you that. That doesn't mean Saddam did not have WMD's at one time. It just so seems that he made them dissapear over a period of time.

I, unlike you don't have a problem with Saddam Hussein gone. I think we finished the job that should of been finished over ten years ago. Back when the SOB had WMDs. It is now more important to focus on rebuilding Iraq (which our wonderful soldiers are helping to do post haste) and instituting a legitmate, democratic government. If that is possible.

Regarding your bumper sticker: It's beyond lame and disrespectful to those who have fallen. You can take your catchy, hippy lingo and shove it straight up you know where. Don't worry I'm just saving you the insult and pain for when you stick it on the back of your 1988 Volvo and some hillbilly decides that he doesn't like you for more than the reasons we have here.

Its interesting that my protesting the unneeded troop fatalities is considered disrespectful to you. Bizarro world.
If Bush had not lied, and had waited for the inspections to work as the UN requested, we would have found out, without bloodshed to anyone, that the weapons were destroyed or nonexistent. The ONLY thing that caused the needless death of our own troops and 10,000 Iraqi civilians was Bush's burning desire to mislead our country into a regime change so he could possess Iraq.
I'm actually MOURNING the needless deaths of troops. If you consider that disrespectful, but instead view their deaths as respectful, then you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

There were other ways to determine the nonexistence of WMDs...ways that were working just fine.

I've even suggested previously that we could have, instead of kicking out inspectors and then "shock and awe"-ing the general populace, simply taken all the inspectors at the south end of Iraq, asked for other inspectors to join them, taken the tanks and troops we already had in the area, and very calmly walked across Iraq doing a sector by sector search for WMDs. That way we would have been actually enforcing the UN resolutions instead of just giving them lip service, the job would have been done accurately and thoroughly, and if Saddam balked or attacked, then we'd already be in the country full force.No deaths, no resentments, if we found weapons, we confiscate them, and end the march at baghdad, surround it peacefully but with a show of force and demand Saddam surrender if he had not complied with the resolutions.

If we had done that instead, we would have discovered peacefully that Saddam HAD indeed complied, no deaths.

And, even though you fantasize about committing sodomy on me, may I say that even though I support your right to an alternative lifestyle, I'm straight and you're barking up the wrong ...er....tree.



and, I do not drive a volvo. Not sure why you think I would. ?

and the implicit threat you just posted has been reported to the mods.

have a great day!

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
And, even though you fantasize about committing sodomy on me, may I say that even though I support your right to an alternative lifestyle, I'm straight and you're barking up the wrong ...er....tree.



and, I do not drive a volvo. Not sure why you think I would. ?

and the implicit threat you just posted has been reported to the mods.

have a great day!

Nice try there bucko.

I could care less about sodomizing you. Sorry I put that Deliverance image in your head. Maybe you're thinking too deep.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Nice try there bucko.

I could care less about sodomizing you. Sorry I put that Deliverance image in your head. Maybe you're thinking too deep.

maybe you're breaking the rules and being offensively abusive to other members because you can't form a coherent argument?

You're the one that brought up threats. I've reported you. Have a great day!

maybe next time, instead of attacking me, argue with me, its more in line with the rules.

Here's the problem with people like you: I criticize Bush or whatever politician, you make personal attacks and threats against me.

Guess who is breaking macnn rules? Guess who has already lost the argument?

[ghost_flash]

Y'all are off-topic. Take it to the, I'm smarter than you, no you're not forum.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Guess who is breaking macnn rules? Guess who has already lost the argument?

Yes and I find your bumper sticker offensive.

You spat some personal attack back at me involving sodomy and I brushed it right off.

Sorry fishbait, that dog don't hunt.

Seems like you take things too personally. Maybe you should lighten up.

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by MacOSR:
Has the Republican party ran ads such as these? I wasn't aware of this...can I see them anywhere online as I can with the anti-Bush ads.

Do some searches on the South Carolina primary in the last election. What they did to mccain was nasty, and he is in the same party. Really really nasty, and they did it very covertly as to not make it look like they were behind the attack ads. This plus the total lack of support for his campaign fiance bill, i am surprised he can still call himself a republican.

You will get no argumnet from on the budget...I just laught when Bush is blamed. People that blame Bush for the deficit should be looking at congress.

And who runs the Congress?

Like I said in the opening comments I do not remember anything like this ever coming from any group associated with the Republican party. Please point me in the right direction to view these ads...thanks!

As I said above, the stuff they did to maccain in 2000 was pretty low. After maccain won NH, bush were desperate and had people at maccain rallies handing out papers about maccain's wife's drug addiction and stuff like that.

the republican party also ran some ads against dean in Iowa that weren't too nice but i don't know if you can find those online.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Yes and I find your bumper sticker offensive.

you find criticizing needless death more offensive than actually causing needless death?

[Demonhood]

why don't you both just refrain from attacking each other and refrain from posting in this thread?

and if you reply to this with anything like "but i'm the one being attacked!!!!" you're gone too.

[The Mick]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[list][*]Government tells you there is an Arab boogey-man out to get you, collects your money and curbs your civil liberties, insists the boogey-man could strike any minute, collects more money and further curbs your civil liberties, reminds you that the boogey-man is ruthless and inscrutibale, collects more of your money.....Oh, and don't forget to hand over more of your civil liberties!

Funny! Reminds me of this:

Originally posted by The Mick:
I don't want anything both ways, I want a happy middle ground somewhere. From my admittedly cynical viewpoint, these speeches are like a parent constantly telling their child that the boogie man won't get you, but don't forget about the boogie man under the bed! Daddy will protect you from the boogie man, but remember, he hides in the closet! There's a boogie man in the basement, but don't worry, Daddy will keep you safe. It's like they are trying to lull us into complacency.

BOT:
I am a bit disturbed by CBS' decision, since the advertisement is neither offensive or inaccurate. I say let the ad air, MoveOn paid for it.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by The Mick:
Funny! Reminds me of this:

BOT:
I am a bit disturbed by CBS' decision, since the advertisement is neither offensive or inaccurate. I say let the ad air, MoveOn paid for it.

It is offensive and innacurate to some, that
is obvious. Personally, let it air, it will only
pee people off anyway. I'll be in the fridge,
getting a brew.

[voyageur]

I'm curious about the content of the Bush ad that CBS does plan to air during the Super Bowl. I don't watch football <ducks to avoid flying brickbats>, so someone let me know, eh?